george anzinger writes:
> By the by, if a preemption lock is all that is needed the patch defines
> it and it is rather fast (an inc going in and a dec & test comming
> out). A lot faster than a spin lock with its "LOCK" access. A preempt
> lock does not need to be "LOCK"ed because the only contender is the same
> cpu.
So we would have to invoke this thing around every set of
smp_processor_id() references?
Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:15 EST