Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:00:46 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 |
| |
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote: > > > > How can't you get the fact that semaphores could _never_ be as simple as > > mutexes? This is a theoritical impossibility, which maybe turns out not > > to be so true on x86, but which is damn true on ARM where the fast path > > (the common case of a mutex) is significantly more efficient. > > > > I did notice your comments. I'll grant that mutexes will save some tens of > fastpath cycles on one minor architecture. Sorry, but that doesn't seem > very important. >
"minor architecture"? Granted, I don't know of any ARM desktops or servers, but there's a large number of ARM devices out in the real world. Or are we giving up on Linux being an embedded OS?
-- Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |