[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.
Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> Hey, that's not bad for a small change! 50% of potential programming
> errors sent to the dustbin without ever being encountered.

Then you replace errors with inefficiency - nobody discovers that
you needlessly take a lock twice. They notice OOPSes though, the
lock gurus can then debug it.

Trading performance for simplicity is ok in some cases, but I have a strong
felling this isn't one of them. Consider how people optimize locking
by shaving off a single cycle when they can, and try to avoid
locking as much as possible for that big smp scalability.

This is something better done right - people should just take the

Helge Hafting

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans