Re: sort of ... spinlock_softirq()
Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
15 Aug 1998 02:18:56 +0200
In article <19980814213950.C17095@impsat1.com.ar>,
Juanjo Ciarlante <irriga@impsat1.com.ar> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 01:24:25AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> In article <19980814204643.B17095@impsat1.com.ar>,
>> Juanjo Ciarlante <irriga@impsat1.com.ar> writes:
>>
>> write_lock_irqsave() is faster than start_bh_atomic(), because
>> start_bh_atomic calls synchronize_bh currently which can be costly. Also
>> start_bh_atomic is a global locking algorithm, while write_lock_irqsave
>> works local which is faster - when irqs are disabled on the current CPU
>> then other CPUs can still process them. In a start_bh_atomic you block
>> out all BHs on all CPUs.
> and what about UP ?
On UP start_bh_atomic is faster.
-Andi
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html