On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 19:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> But you did not answer, and I am curious. What was your original
> motivation? Is xchg really faster than cmpxchg?
And is this true over multiple architectures? Or are we optimizing for
x86_64 (again) ?
--
To unsubscribe from this
On 10/10, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> @@ -52,16 +52,7 @@ void task_work_run(void)
> struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
>
> for (;;) {
> - /*
> - * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
> -
On 10/10, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -52,16 +52,7 @@ void task_work_run(void)
struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
for (;;) {
- /*
- * work-func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
- *
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 19:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
But you did not answer, and I am curious. What was your original
motivation? Is xchg really faster than cmpxchg?
And is this true over multiple architectures? Or are we optimizing for
x86_64 (again) ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On 10/09/2012 07:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 14:38 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> But the code looks more complex, and the only advantage is that
>> non-exiting task does xchg() instead of cmpxchg(). Not sure this
>> worth the trouble, in this case task_work_run() will
On 10/09/2012 07:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 14:38 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
But the code looks more complex, and the only advantage is that
non-exiting task does xchg() instead of cmpxchg(). Not sure this
worth the trouble, in this case task_work_run() will likey run
6 matches
Mail list logo
