[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

* Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:51 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 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?
> No, because x86 is not the whole universe

x86 is actually a 'worst-case', because it has one of the cheapest CPU
level cli/sti implementations. Usually it's the hard-local_irq_disable()
overhead on non-x86 platforms that is a problem. (ARM iirc) So in this
sense the soft-flag should be a win on most sane architectures.

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: 2005-06-12 09:02    [W:0.143 / U:2.064 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site