[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Esben Nielsen <> wrote:
> > > the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had
> > > RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which
> > > mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were
> > > interrupt response times measured.
> > >
> > You would accept a patch where I made this stuff optional?
> I'm not sure why. The soft-flag based local_irq_disable() should in fact
> be a tiny bit faster than the cli based approach, on a fair number of
> CPUs. But it should definitely not be slower in any measurable way.

Interesting .. So "cli" takes 7 cycles , "sti" takes 7 cycles. The current
method does "lea" which takes 1 cycle, and "or" which takes 1 cycle. I'm
not sure if there is any function call overhead .. So the soft replacment
of cli/sti is 70% faster on a per instruction level .. So it's at least
not any slower .. Does everyone agree on that?


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: 2005-06-11 22:55    [W:0.149 / U:16.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site