Re: [patch 1/3] mutex subsystem: trylock

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > here we go to great trouble trying to avoid the 'slowpath', while we 
> > unconditionally force the next unlock into the slowpath! So we have 
> > not won anything. (on a cycle count basis it's probably even a net 
> > loss)
> 
> I disagree.  [...elaborate analysis of the code ...]

you are right, it should work fine, and should be optimal. I'll add your 
xchg variant to mutex-xchg.h.

	Ingo
-
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/