Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 04:27:56AM -0800, george anzinger wrote:
> > >
> > > that's why spinlocks are effectively nops on UP.
> > > What you say is true of just about every spinlock user, and no
> > > they shouldn't all do some IF_SMP() thing; the spinlock itself should be
> > > (and is) zero on UP
> >
> > But with preemption, they really are not nops on UP...
>
> that doesn't justify fuglyfying the kernel code. If you can't live
> with the overhead of preemption, disable preemption. Simple.
> We DON'T want
> spin_lock_nop_on_preempt()
> ...
>
> spin_unlock_nop_on_preempt()
>
> really, I don't, and I can't see anyone else wanting that either
Well, I just thought it was an optimization. I will leave
it the way it is.
-- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:16 EST