>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:03:30 +0200 (MET DST)
>From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <email@example.com>
>To: Ralf Baechle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: ll/sc emulation patch
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> I'm just making an attempt to re-implement the ll/sc emulation as light
>> as possible. I hope to get the overhead down to the point were we don't
>> need _test_and_set anymore - in any case below the overhead of a syscall.
>> Have you ever profiled the number of calls to MIPS_ATOMIC_SET or
>> _test_and_set? They'll be the other factor in a decission.
> I didn't profile it very extensively, yet when stracing `ls /usr/lib'
>(fileutils 4.1 linked against glibc 2.2.3) on my system once I yielded
>~4500 syscalls of which ~4000 were _test_and_set() (or MIPS_ATOMIC_SET,
>depending on my kernel/glibc configuration) invocations. Yes, libpthread
>appears to assume atomic operations are cheap, which is justifiable as
>they are indeed, for almost every other CPU type.
Not knowing anything about the glibc architecture, I have a dumb
question: why is 'ls' doing anything at all with pthreads?