[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805080859140.3024@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] speed up / fix the new generic semaphore code (fix AIM7
40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1)
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Peter pointed it out that because sem->count is u32, the <= 0 is in fact
> a "== 0" condition - the patch below does that. As expected gcc figured
> out the same thing too so the resulting code output did not change. (so
> this is just a cleanup)
Why don't we just make it do the same thing that the x86 semaphores used
to do: make it signed, and decrement unconditionally. And callt eh
slow-path if it became negative.
IOW, make the fast-path be
spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
if (--sem->count < 0)
__down();
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
and now we have an existing known-good implementation to look at?
Rather than making up a totally new and untested thing.
Linus
--
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