Andi wrote:
>We don't need the lock prefix to test our local thread flags state.
>Unfortunately test_thread_flag currently always uses test_bit which
>has a LOCK on SMP, but that's unnecessary. LOCK is costly on P4,
>so it's a good idea to avoid it.
>
>
No, LOCK is required: the TIF_ flags word is also used for signal
delivery - writing without lock could corrupt state.
What about moving TIF_USEDFPU from the thread_info into
task_struct->flags? This flag word is only accessed by "current", no
special atomicity requirements.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:18 EST