lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Profile likely/unlikely macros
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
>
>> + if (likeliness->type & LIKELY_UNSEEN) {
>> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&likely_lock)) {
>> + if (likeliness->type & LIKELY_UNSEEN) {
>> + likeliness->type &= (~LIKELY_UNSEEN);
>> + likeliness->next = likeliness_head;
>> + likeliness_head = likeliness;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + atomic_inc(&likely_lock);
>
>
> hm, good enough I guess. It does need a comment explaining why we
> don't just do spin_lock().

I guess it is so it can be used in NMIs and interrupts without turning
interrupts off (so is somewhat lightweight).

But please Daniel, just use spinlocks and trylock. This is buggy because
it doesn't get the required release consistency correct.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-25 13:22    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site