lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] new spinlock variant, spinlock-2.3.30-A4
    Date
    Tuesday, November 30, 1999 10:50 PM
    Ingo Molnar <mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu> wrote :

    > yes, true. Keep in mind that this only affects the slow path. The above
    > spinlock would be implemented as a function anyway (we do not want to
    > inline it), and in that case the slow path can eg. use queued spinlocks
    > (spinlock chains through on-stack variables) or exponential backoff, or
    > whatever technique.

    OK, I've misunderstood that the code You suggested was a replacement of the
    "lock" one
    while this is only a fast test, failing it CPUs falls executing the "lock"
    code.

    Cheers,
    Davide.

    --
    "Debian, the Freedom in Freedom."





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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.029 / U:1.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site