Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761278AbZFMU0O (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:26:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759897AbZFMU0A (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:26:00 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:32886 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753916AbZFMUZ7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:25:59 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:25:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Paul Mackerras cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64_t implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <18995.20685.227683.561827@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 774 Lines: 24 On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > Linus, Andrew: OK if this goes in via the powerpc tree? > > Ok by me. Btw, do 32-bit architectures really necessarily want 64-bit performance counters? I realize that 32-bit counters will overflow pretty easily, but I do wonder about the performance impact of doing things like hashed spinlocks for 64-bit counters. Maybe the downsides of 64-bit perf counters on such architectures might outweight the upsides? Linus -- 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/