Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Disabling SMP (on platforms where this isn't off by design already) is
>>>> an optimization. In contrast, not enabling it by default is doomed to
>>>> cause problems for users that run ./configure without looking into each
>>>> and every switch - now that CONFIG_SMP is very important for all the
>>>> fast locking stuff.
>>> I would consider setting CONFIG_SMP by default on x86... because on some
>>> other architectures like arm, it is not even yet a valid configuration.
>> But it is on PowerPC or IA64. Would it cause troubles for the
>> non-SMP-ready archs? Then we can disable it on those selectively.
> Are you sure that the lock prefix on an UP x86 or lsync on an UP powerpc
> is hamrless ?

LOCK is harmless (except for potential overhead), can't comment isync,
but I strongly suspect the same (locking at the glibc e.g.). There is a
simple idea behind this: Do you have to install a special glibc in order
to enable/disable SMP support?

[ BTW, I think the current pthread_mutex implementation lacks the LOCK
prefix even in SMP mode due to include issues. Will get fixed with my
patches under preparation, which also unifies that stuff on x86. ]


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to