lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/4] net: percpufy frequently used vars -- add percpu_counter_mod_bh
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> But on non x86, local_bh_disable() is gonna be cheaper than a cli/atomic op no?
> (Even if they were switched over to do local_irq_save() and
> local_irq_restore() from atomic_t's that is).

It's still more expensive than local_t.

> And if we use local_t, we will add the overhead for the non bh
> percpu_counter_mod for non x86 arches.

Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t
implementations. Most of the RISC CPUs are able to do a load / store
conditional implementation that is the same cost (since memory barriers
tend to be explicite on powerpc). So why not use it?

-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <dont@kvack.org>.
-
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: 2006-03-08 22:25    [W:0.239 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site