On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:07:26PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> But on non x86, local_bh_disable() is gonna be cheaper than a cli/atomic op
> no?
> (Even if they were switched over to do local_irq_save() and
> local_irq_restore() from atomic_t's that is).
It's still more expensive than local_t.
> And if we use local_t, we will add the overhead for the non bh
> percpu_counter_mod for non x86 arches.
Last time I checked, all the major architectures had efficient local_t
implementations. Most of the RISC CPUs are able to do a load / store
conditional implementation that is the same cost (since memory barriers
tend to be explicite on powerpc). So why not use it?
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
