From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Interrupt starvation points
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:04:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050211200424.B28971@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1108141521.21940.44.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com>; from dwalker@mvista.com on Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:05:21AM -0800
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:05:21AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> The other patch enabled interrupt before calling up on
> kernel_sem ..This one could use some thinking over. I did this cause
> up() is very expensive on ARM , and combined with the looping above
> interrupts can stay off for a long time ..
Please substantiate your claim that up() is very expensive on ARM.
I disagree:
#define __up_op(ptr,wake) \
({ \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
"@ up_op\n" \
" mrs ip, cpsr\n" \
" orr lr, ip, #128\n" \
" msr cpsr_c, lr\n" \
" ldr lr, [%0]\n" \
" adds lr, lr, %1\n" \
" str lr, [%0]\n" \
" msr cpsr_c, ip\n" \
" movle ip, %0\n" \
" blle " #wake \
: \
: "r" (ptr), "I" (1) \
: "ip", "lr", "cc", "memory"); \
})
static inline void up(struct semaphore * sem)
{
__up_op(sem, __up_wakeup);
}
Looks like 9 instructions for the uncontended case to me. If you're
worried about 9 instructions being expensive, please work on GCC to
improve its optimisation capabilities first. There's room there for
improvement across the whole kernel than just the above 9 instructions.
Plus, after you've read the above code, wouldn't you think that adding
the "enable interrupts + disable interrupts" around an up() operation
(which itself immediately disables interrupts again) is just adding
extra instructions to the kernel, which corresponds directly to lower
performance?
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-11 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-11 17:05 Daniel Walker
2005-02-11 17:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-11 17:36 ` Daniel Walker
2005-02-11 20:04 ` Russell King [this message]
2005-02-11 21:52 ` Daniel Walker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050211200424.B28971@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®