Re: PI patch against 2.6.16-rt9

Ingo Molnar
2006-03-29T12:32:36Z

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> Btw, your get/put_task proposal adds two atomic ops. Atomic ops are
> implicit memory barriers and therefor you add two extra slow downs
> into the non conflict case.

i'm not that worried about this - the atomic ops are for already cached
cachelines, any sane CPU ought to execute them close to full speed.
(x86-ish cpus certainly do)

Ingo