Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64_t implementation
From: Paul Mackerras
Date: Sun Jun 14 2009 - 08:21:46 EST
Avi Kivity writes:
> An alternative implementation using 64-bit cmpxchg will recover most of
> the costs of hashed spinlocks. I assume most serious 32-bit
> architectures have them?
Have a 64-bit cmpxchg, you mean? x86 is the only one I know of, and
it already has an atomic64_t implementation using cmpxchg8b (or
whatever it's called).
My thinking is that the 32-bit non-x86 architectures will be mostly
UP, so the overhead is just an interrupt enable/restore. Those that
are SMP I would expect to be small SMP -- mostly just 2 cpus and maybe
a few 4-way systems.
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/