Re: [PATCH] break_lock forever broken
From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Sun Mar 13 2005 - 08:54:36 EST
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 09:35 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 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.
if the cacheline is dirtied previously it's just free to do the write so
I suggest to remove the conditional...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/