[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:36:52 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] bitops: add generic implementation of ext2 atomic bitops by test_and_{set,clear}_bit
On Sunday 10 October 2010 17:07:26 Akinobu Mita wrote:
> Some architectures use spinlock to implement it
> (asm-generic/bitops/ext2-atomic.h). Most other architectures use
> test_and_set_bit() and test_and_clear_bit() as this patch shows.
>
> Why are there two implementations? test_and_{set,clear}_bit() are more
> costly operations than spinlock for some architectures?
I would guess that is only true on architectures that implement all atomics
using a hashed spinlock like cris, sparc32 or parisc. This way the user
can decide which spinlock to use rather than have the arch code calculate
a hash on the pointer.
This is an ext2 specific micro-optimization that I don't think makes
sense in the generic le bitops code.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists