Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Ingo Molnar]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 13:51 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > Interesting .. So "cli" takes 7 cycles , "sti" takes 7 cycles. The current 
> > method does "lea" which takes 1 cycle, and "or" which takes 1 cycle. I'm 
> > not sure if there is any function call overhead .. So the soft replacment 
> > of cli/sti is 70% faster on a per instruction level .. So it's at least 
> > not any slower .. Does everyone agree on that?
> 
> No, because x86 is not the whole universe

x86 is actually a 'worst-case', because it has one of the cheapest CPU 
level cli/sti implementations. Usually it's the hard-local_irq_disable() 
overhead on non-x86 platforms that is a problem. (ARM iirc) So in this 
sense the soft-flag should be a win on most sane architectures.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/