Arjan van de Ven writes: > On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 16:06 -0500, Robert Wisniewski wrote: > > > :-) - as above. Furthermore, it seems that reducing the places where > > interrupts are disabled would be a good thing? > > depends at the price. On several cpus, disabling interupts is hundreds > of times cheaper than doing an atomic op.
Wow - disabling interrupts is handfuls to tens of cycles, so that means some architectures take thousands of cycles to do atomic operations. Then I would definitely agree we should not be using atomic operations on those, fwiw, out of curiosity, what archs make atomic ops so expensive. Andrew, on the broader note. If the community feels disabling interrupts is the better way to go for the variables (I think it's index and count) we were protecting with atomic ops then as the code stands things should be fine with that approach and we can make that change. Thanks for your attention to looking through this. -bob Robert Wisniewski The K42 MP OS Project http://www.research.ibm.com/K42/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
