| To: | Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel |
| From: | Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 May 2001 20:55:53 +0200 |
| Cc: | Joe deBlaquiere <jadb@redhat.com>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, ralf@oss.sgi.com, Pete Popov <ppopov@mvista.com>, George Gensure <werkt@csh.rit.edu>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <20010523205412.A10981@paradigm.rfc822.org>; from flo@rfc822.org on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 08:54:12PM +0200 |
| Organization: | rfc822 - pure communication |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010523152429.5196A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <3B0BF7F8.3050306@redhat.com> <3B0C0475.B9ACE682@mvista.com> <20010523205412.A10981@paradigm.rfc822.org> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.15i |
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 08:54:12PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> My favourit would be to let the glibc on runtime decide whether
> to use sysmips or ll/sc in the atomic test_and_set stuff. This would
> lead to an common atom op in the userspace which is fast on ll/sc
> cpus and gives much lesser performance penaltys in the sysmips case
> than emulating ll/sc.
But again - I tried to run this discussion again and again - As long
as there is no code to use there is no point in taking a discussion.
I needed a working sysmips for debian as we compile the glibc with
sysmips (performance penalty but for now works everywhere) thus
i fixed the sysmips.
Let the code speak
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5201-669912
Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel, Jun Sun |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel, Florian Lohoff |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel, Florian Lohoff |
| Next by Thread: | Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel, Joe deBlaquiere |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |