On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:50 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:52:34AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:32 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:33:58AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:59 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > atomic_dec_and_test() is more expensive than 2 barriers + > > > > > > atomic_dec(), > > > > > > but in case of connector I think the price is not so high. > > > > > > > > > > Can you list the platforms on which this is true? > > > > > > > > sparc64, some mips [at least in UP]. > > > > > > Are you sure? The implementations of atomic_sub and atomic_sub_return > > > (which correspond to atomic_dec and atomic_dec_and_test) seem to be > > > comparable in cost on those two architectures. > > > > mips has additional sync. > > But atomic_dec + 2 barries is going to do the sync as well, no?
On UP do not.
> Cheers,
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
