Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Karim Yaghmour wrote:

> 
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > Interesting .. So "cli" takes 7 cycles , "sti" takes 7 cycles. The current 
> > method does "lea" which takes 1 cycle, and "or" which takes 1 cycle. I'm 
> > not sure if there is any function call overhead .. So the soft replacment 
> > of cli/sti is 70% faster on a per instruction level .. So it's at least 
> > not any slower .. Does everyone agree on that?
> 
> The proof is in the pudding: it's not for nothing that the results
> we published earlier show that the mere enabling of Adeos actually
> increases Linux's performance under heavy load.

Why do you think that is? Is ADEOS optimized for specific machine 
configurations?

> That being said, I'm not sure exactly why you guys are reinventing the
> wheel. Adeos already does this soft-cli/sti stuff for you, it's been
> available for a few years already, tested, and ported to a number of
> architectures, and is generalized, why not just adopt it? After all,
> like I've been saying for some time, it isn't mutually exclusive with
> PREEMPT_RT.

It doesn't seem like one could really merge the two. From what I've read 
, it seem like ADEOS is something completly indepedent . It would be linux 
and ADEOS , but never just linux . 

Daniel

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/