Re: [Q] Looking for an emulation for CMOV* instructions.

From: Brian Gerst (bgerst@didntduck.org)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 08:18:03 EST


"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
>
> H. Peter Anvin wrote, in response to Andi Kleen:
> >You don't need CMPXCHG8B to do efficient inline mutexes. In fact, the
> >pthreads code for i386 uses the same mutexes the kernel does (LOCK INC
> >based, I believe), complete with section hacking to make them
> >efficiently inlinable -- and then they're put inside a function call.
> [...]
>
> Your comment prompted me to look at
> linux-2.5.2-pre11/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h, and I now believe that
> the "lock; decb" that it uses for grabbing spinlocks will return an
> incorrect success if 255 or more processors are waiting on the same
> spinlock.

Implementation detail. You could just as easily use a long instead of a
char and have room for 2^32 processors.

--
						Brian Gerst
-
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 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:38 EST