Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

[Andi Kleen]

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:05, David Howells wrote:

>Because i386 (and x86_64) can do better by using XADDL/XADDQ.

x86-64 has always used the spinlock based version.

> On i386, CMPXCHG also ties you to what registers you may use for what to some
> extent. 

We've completely given up these kinds of micro optimization for spinlocks,
which are 1000x as critical as rwsems.  And nobody was able to benchmark
a difference.

It is very very likely nobody could benchmark a difference on rwsems either.

While I'm sure it's an interesting intellectual exercise to do these
advanced rwsems it would be better for everybody else to go for a single 
maintainable C implementation.

-Andi
-
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/