linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel
From: David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:58:46 -0800
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20071107.003925.74752709.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20071101.013124.108121433.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20071031163900.GB22871@linux-mips.org> <20071103.014649.122254137.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20071107.003925.74752709.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727)
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
+LEAF(r4k_wait)
+       .set    push
+       .set    noreorder
+       /* start of rollback region */
+       LONG_L  t0, TI_FLAGS($28)
+       nop
+       andi    t0, _TIF_NEED_RESCHED
+       bnez    t0, 1f
+        nop
+       nop
+       nop
+       .set    mips3
+       wait
+       .set    mips0
+       /* end of rollback region (the region size must be power of two) */
+       .set    pop

The .set mips0 is redundant as .set pop immediately follows.

David Daney


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>