| To: | Ed Martini <martini@c2micro.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Observations on LLSC and SMP |
| From: | Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> |
| Date: | Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:37:59 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <42446555.6090005@c2micro.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <4230DB4C.7090103@c2micro.com> <20050314110101.GF7759@linux-mips.org> <423763B9.2000907@c2micro.com> <20050316120647.GB8563@linux-mips.org> <42446555.6090005@c2micro.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:24:05AM -0800, Ed Martini wrote: > 1. If the first part of the if were an ifdef instead it would result in > a code size reduction as well as a runtime performance gain. You should spend a little time playing with an optimizing compiler. They're capable of working out when a condition will always be false. > 2. In atomic.h the "C lang stuff" is wrapped with a spinlock. In the > SMP case the spinlock will result in code that contains ll and sc > instructions, so I infer that there are no SMP system configs that use > CPUs that don't have the ll and sc instructions. That's correct. It is not practical to implement SMP without a mutex primitive. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Observations on LLSC and SMP, Ed Martini |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] serial console (drivers/serial/ip22zilog.c), peter fuerst |
| Previous by Thread: | Observations on LLSC and SMP, Ed Martini |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Observations on LLSC and SMP, Ed Martini |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |