Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2005 21:13 schrieb Eduardo Pereira Habkost:
> Anyway, I don't see yet why the atomic_t would make the code slower on
> non-smp. Is atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 1) supposed to be slower than
> 'if (!v) v = 1;' ?

spin_lock() can be dropped on UP. atomic_XXX must either use an operation
on main memory, meaning less efficient code generation, or must disable
interrupts even on UP.

	Regards
		Oliver
-
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/