lkml.org 
[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.
From
Date
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:01 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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.

to some degree yes.

>
> Sure, a locked cycle has a certain expense. But it's a lot less than the
> expense of a contested spinlock.

the chances that *this* spinlock ends up being contested are near zero,
and.. in that scenario a locked cycle does the same thing, just in
hardware..... (eg the other cpu will busy wait until this locked cycle
is done)

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-07 17:07    [W:0.133 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site