On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:01:27PM +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 06:37:43PM +0900, kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp wrote:
> > FYI: 1 CPU clock is 2.2ns@450MHz
> > lock aquire: if (test_and_set_bit(0, (void*)&sp->in_interrupt)) {
> > lock release: clear_bit(0, (void*)&sp->in_interrupt);
> >
> > Huum, "movb" instruction should be applied to exit-lock, again.
>
> You may remove this lock altogether. It's a pure debugging stuff.
Andrew Morton has called my attention to the locks.
Actually there are two "lock": atomic check for in_interrupt which is a
debugging stuff and isn't necessary. The second one is a spinlock (sp->lock)
guarding TX ring and the hardware command port. It is necessary, and I don't
see how it can be optimized.
Best regards
Andrey V.
Savochkin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:21 EST