Re: "movb" for spin-unlock (was Re: namei() query)

From: Mikulas Patocka (mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz)
Date: Mon Apr 24 2000 - 08:13:57 EST

Next message: Philip Blundell: "Re: patch: signed char issues"
Previous message: Philip Blundell: "patch: smctr.[ch]"
In reply to: Rogier Wolff: "Re: "movb" for spin-unlock (was Re: namei() query)"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: "movb" for spin-unlock (was Re: namei() query)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> Would it be an idea to just "go all the way" then? Make the menu split
> PII and PIII. So far, this doesn't make a difference, but it might in
> the future.

PIII has write barrier (SFENCE) and it should be used. I tried Manfred's
current_state test with sfence and it didn't lock up. Sfence is much
faster than lock.

Mikulas

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Philip Blundell: "Re: patch: signed char issues"
Previous message: Philip Blundell: "patch: smctr.[ch]"
In reply to: Rogier Wolff: "Re: "movb" for spin-unlock (was Re: namei() query)"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: "movb" for spin-unlock (was Re: namei() query)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 21:00:07 EST