Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 May 2016 22:52:22 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks |
| |
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >Similarly, and I know you hate it, but afaict, then semantically > >queued_spin_is_contended() ought to be: > > > >- return atomic_read(&lock->val) & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK; > >+ return atomic_read(&lock->val); > >
> Looking for contended lock, you need to consider the lock waiters also. So > looking at the whole word is right.
No, you _only_ need to look at the lock waiters.
| |