Re: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20

From: Arjan van de Ven (
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 07:34:34 EST

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 04:27:56AM -0800, george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > that's why spinlocks are effectively nops on UP.
> > What you say is true of just about every spinlock user, and no
> > they shouldn't all do some IF_SMP() thing; the spinlock itself should be
> > (and is) zero on UP
> But with preemption, they really are not nops on UP...

that doesn't justify fuglyfying the kernel code. If you can't live
with the overhead of preemption, disable preemption. Simple.
We DON'T want


really, I don't, and I can't see anyone else wanting that either
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:14 EST