David Miller wrote:
quoted text
> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:23:24 -0400
> 
>> This is bogus -- you should never need to slow down the hot path in such 
>> a way.
> 
> Slow down in what way?  Even on x86 saving the flags is just
> about as expensive as a plain sti/cli.

Replacing spin_lock() [current 8139too.c] with spin_lock_irqsave() 
results in a larger interrupt handler... more CPU instructions for the 
same result.


quoted text
> I would in fact prefer to see drivers unconditionally use
> spin_lock_irqsave() et al. in the interrupt handler, for
> consistency.

The entire spin_lock() apparatus in the interrupt handler disappears 
nicely on uniprocessor machines.

Plus, you are not competing with any other interrupts other than your 
own, which is the only major class of problems where spin_lock_irqsave() 
in interrupt handler is really needed (PS/2 kbd + mouse is an example).

Or more simply, it's not needed, so nothing is gained by doing 
additional work in the hot path for the sake of consistency.

	Jeff


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/