On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:Hmm. That probably means that TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK shouldn't be a "TIF" flag at all, but a "TS" ("thread status") flag. The TS flags are faster, because they are thread-synchronous and do not need atomic accesses (ie they are purely thread-local in setting, testing and clearing). Of course, it may well not be worth it. Unlike the TIF flags, the TS flags have been architecture-specific and I don't think all architectures even do them (x86 uses them for FP state bits and stuff like that). I guess TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK is never *so* performance-critical that we'd care about the difference between a single cycle (approx) for a non-atomic "or" into memory and an atomic bitop (~50 cycles or so). Linus --
| Zach Brown | [PATCH 3 of 4] Teach paths to wake a specific void * target instead of a whole tas... |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: LSM conversion to static interface |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
git: | |
| Gregory Haskins | [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
