| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel, Atsushi Nemoto |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Next by Thread: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |