lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] break_lock forever broken
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > \
> > + if ((lock)->break_lock) \
> > + (lock)->break_lock = 0; \
> > } \
> if it really worth an conditional there? the cacheline of the lock is
> made dirty anyway on unlock, so writing an extra 0 is like almost free
> (maybe half a cycle) while a conditional jump can be 100+....

I wondered the same, I don't know and would defer to those who do:
really I was just following the style of where break_lock is set above,
which follows soon (unless preempted) after a _raw_whatever_trylock.

Hugh
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:11    [W:0.068 / U:1.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site