On Sun, 18 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:Side note: the alternative, of course, is to just use the atomic bit operations. They aren't generally much (if at all) faster than locking + doing the operation + unlocking, but they can avoid lock contention, so if you do a lot of bit ops that need no other locking than the setting and clearing (possibly with testing), then they are the right choice. For signals, we obviously need other locking, so the atomic bit ops are a waste of time (doing *both* locking for other reasons *and* atomic bitops is obviously much slower than either). Linus --
| Ian Campbell | Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format. |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Justin Piszcz | Linux Software RAID 5 Performance Optimizations: 2.6.19.1: (211MB/s read & 195... |
| Alan | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Matthias Scheler | Re: HEADS UP: timecounters (branch simonb-timecounters) merged into -current |
| David Laight | long usernames |
| Quentin Garnier | Re: Understanding foo_open, foo_read, etc. |
| Jared D. McNeill | Breaking binary compatibility for /dev/joy |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
