[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] killed tqueue_lock spinlock
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> I can't see a big difference. I still like more my version just because I

Come on. It's obvious speed up!

> like to play with the lock with sure atomic operations in task_queue()
> while run_task_queue() is spinning on the lock. And theorically some

Why? On which architecture is not assignment atomic? And that
assignment does not have to be atomic anyway, as nobody else can set the
next pointer until it is set properly and used (it's protected by the sync

> really nowadays-crazy architecture may want to have 1 byte data at address
> -1 (really unlikely to happen I know ;).

Well, user access error handling already uses such special pointers...
And, anyway, data maybe, but *code* ? It's not ZX Spectrum (cf popular IM2
setting) :)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.116 / U:35.928 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site