[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4840C394.2080807@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 20:18:44 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] 64-bit futexes: x86 support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Also, doesn't this mean that effectively you have given up on any CPU
> before the Pentium entirely?
Yes, but only for the speed-up. Not for the functionality. All
programs will work just fine.
> Not that I want to take the patches _anyway_, but it seems doubly stupid.
> Those things are going to be UP machines, so you could have just emulated
> it with no correctness issues by disabling preemption.
First, you're thinking too much in kernel terms. At userlevel I cannot
disable interrupts etc. I cannot read 64 bits atomically on those
processors. Second, the old implementation is not significantly slower
in normal programs on UP machines. It's really not a big issue.
In any case, robbing 64-bit architectures of the possible performance
gain just because there are ancient versions which cannot do it is just
plain stupid. I know you cannot suggest that.
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkhAw5QACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHTRRwCgv37woIjA5RJji4XamBQVqCyF
VMwAoIauSEdAlfK4pBJhMkIKirwEBw0z
=rDJc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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