Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:43:04 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386) |
| |
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I slightly modified it to use cycles: > > > > http://www.xmailserver.org/qspins.c > > Slightly more than slightly ;) > > You want to have a delay _outside_ the critical section as well, for > multi-thread tests, otherwise the releasing CPU often just retakes > the lock (in the unqueued lock case). As I said, most kernel code > should _not_ be dropping and retaking locks.
Yeah. ATM it mostly does double-takes.
- 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/
| |