[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:0.019 / U:0.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site