lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 03/28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > Well with my queued spinlocks, all that lockbreak stuff can just come out
> > of the spin_lock, break_lock out of the spinlock structure, and
> > need_lockbreak just becomes (lock->qhead - lock->qtail > 1).
>
> Q: queued spinlocks are not CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly,

Why? Is CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly to anyone? :)



> > + asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "xaddw %0, %1\n\t"
> > + : "+r" (pos), "+m" (lock->qhead) : : "memory");
> > + while (unlikely(pos != lock->qtail))
> > + cpu_relax();
>
> once we incremented lock->qhead, we have no optiion but should spin with
> preemption disabled until pos == lock->qtail, yes?

Yes, preemption and deterministic spinlock policies are not friends.



- Davide


-
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: 2007-03-30 00:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans