Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> 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.
>

"minor architecture"?  Granted, I don't know of any ARM desktops or
servers, but there's a large number of ARM devices out in the real world.
Or are we giving up on Linux being an embedded OS?

-- Steve

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/