Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:48:57 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/3] mutex subsystem: trylock |
| |
* Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > here we go to great trouble trying to avoid the 'slowpath', while we > > unconditionally force the next unlock into the slowpath! So we have > > not won anything. (on a cycle count basis it's probably even a net > > loss) > > I disagree. [...elaborate analysis of the code ...]
you are right, it should work fine, and should be optimal. I'll add your xchg variant to mutex-xchg.h.
Ingo - 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/
| |