Re: PI patch against 2.6.16-rt9

[Ingo Molnar]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Btw, your get/put_task proposal adds two atomic ops. Atomic ops are 
> implicit memory barriers and therefor you add two extra slow downs 
> into the non conflict case.

i'm not that worried about this - the atomic ops are for already cached 
cachelines, any sane CPU ought to execute them close to full speed.  
(x86-ish cpus certainly do)

	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/