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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans