Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 | From | Xavier Bestel <> | Date | Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:04:48 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 15:57, Russell King wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 06:51:18AM -0800, 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. > > Wow.
Yes, wow. Andrew doesn't seem aware of embedded linux people, for whom cycles are important and ARM is king.
Xav
- 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/
| |