Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030554AbVLWPFR (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:05:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030561AbVLWPFQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:05:16 -0500 Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.31]:8214 "EHLO smtp11.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030554AbVLWPFO (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:05:14 -0500 X-ME-UUID: 20051223150512942.E61741C000B1@mwinf1103.wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 From: Xavier Bestel To: Russell King Cc: Andrew Morton , Nicolas Pitre , hch@infradead.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, arjan@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, arjanv@infradead.org, jes@trained-monkey.org, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, oleg@tv-sign.ru, dhowells@redhat.com, bcrl@kvack.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, ak@suse.de In-Reply-To: <20051223145746.GA2077@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20051222122011.GA20789@elte.hu> <20051222050701.41b308f9.akpm@osdl.org> <1135257829.2940.19.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20051222054413.c1789c43.akpm@osdl.org> <1135260709.10383.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051222153014.22f07e60.akpm@osdl.org> <20051222233416.GA14182@infradead.org> <20051222221311.2f6056ec.akpm@osdl.org> <20051223065118.95738acc.akpm@osdl.org> <20051223145746.GA2077@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1135350288.6493.258.camel@capoeira> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:04:48 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1015 Lines: 25 On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 15:57, Russell King wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 06:51:18AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > How can't you get the fact that semaphores could _never_ be as simple as > > > mutexes? This is a theoritical impossibility, which maybe turns out not > > > to be so true on x86, but which is damn true on ARM where the fast path > > > (the common case of a mutex) is significantly more efficient. > > > > I did notice your comments. I'll grant that mutexes will save some tens of > > fastpath cycles on one minor architecture. Sorry, but that doesn't seem > > very important. > > Wow. Yes, wow. Andrew doesn't seem aware of embedded linux people, for whom cycles are important and ARM is king. Xav - 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/