Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For i386 and i486, there is no reason to try to maintain a complex fast
> case. The machines are unquestionably going away - we should strive to not
> burden them unnecessarily, but we should _not_ try to save two cycles.
...
> Icache is also precious on the 386, which has
Linus Torvalds wrote:
For i386 and i486, there is no reason to try to maintain a complex fast
case. The machines are unquestionably going away - we should strive to not
burden them unnecessarily, but we should _not_ try to save two cycles.
...
Icache is also precious on the 386, which has no
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 09:23:47AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Andrea seems to have changed his mind on the non-inlining in the generic case.
I changed my mind because if you benchmark the fast path you will do it without
running out of icache (basically only down_* and up_* will be in the
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Andrea is right. Although this file seems to be entirely
> old-fashioned and should never be used, right?
I presume you're talking about "include/asm-i386/rwsem-spin.h"... If so,
Andrea is right, there is a bug in it (repeated a number of
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Andrea is right. Although this file seems to be entirely
old-fashioned and should never be used, right?
I presume you're talking about "include/asm-i386/rwsem-spin.h"... If so,
Andrea is right, there is a bug in it (repeated a number of times),
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 09:23:47AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
Andrea seems to have changed his mind on the non-inlining in the generic case.
I changed my mind because if you benchmark the fast path you will do it without
running out of icache (basically only down_* and up_* will be in the
6 matches
Mail list logo
