[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg()
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:06:39 +0000
David Howells <> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> > and we can assume (and ensure) that a failing test_and_set_bit() will not
> > write to the affected word at all.
> You may not assume that; and indeed that is not so in the generic
> spinlock-based bitops or ARM pre-v6 or PA-RISC or sparc32 or ...

Ah. How obnoxious of them.

> Remember: if you have to put a conditional jump in there, it's going to fail
> one way or the other a certain percentage of the time, and that's going to
> cause a pipeline stall, and these ops are used quite a lot.
> OTOH, I don't know that the stall would be that bad since the spin_lock and
> spin_unlock may cause a stall anyway.

Yes, the branch would cost. But in not uncommon cases that branch will save
the machine from dirtying a cacheline.

And if we add those branches, we bring those architectures' semantics in
line with all the other architectures. And we get better semantics

So I don't think we should rule this out.
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: 2006-12-07 22:11    [W:0.095 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site