From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:37:15 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview In-Reply-To: <41E73EE4.50200@linux-m68k.org> Message-ID: References: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> <20050112104326.69b99298.akpm@osdl.org> <41E73EE4.50200@linux-m68k.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Roman Zippel Cc: Andrew Morton , nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, torvalds@osdl.org, ak@muc.de, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org List-ID: On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > Introduction of the cmpxchg is one atomic operations that replaces the two > > spinlock ops typically necessary in an unpatched kernel. Obtaining the > > spinlock requires an spinlock (which is an atomic operation) and then the > > release involves a barrier. So there is a net win for all SMP cases as far > > as I can see. > > But there might be a loss in the UP case. Spinlocks are optimized away, > but your cmpxchg emulation enables/disables interrupts with every access. The cmpxchg could become a store in the UP case. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org