[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> > On the other hand, Oliver needs to be careful about claiming too much. In
> > general atomic_t operations _are_ superior to the spinlock approach.
> No they're not. Both are just about equally expensive cpu wise,
> sometimes the atomic_t ones are a bit more expensive (like on parisc
> architecture). But on x86 in either case it's a locked cycle, which is
> just expensive no matter which side you flip the coin...

You're overgeneralizing.

Sure, a locked cycle has a certain expense. But it's a lot less than the
expense of a contested spinlock. On the other hand, many times UP systems
can eliminate spinlocks entirely. There are lots of variables and many
possible tradeoffs.

Alan Stern

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-07 17:04    [W:0.126 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site