Re: [rfc][patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

[Davide Libenzi]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > I slightly modified it to use cycles:
> > 
> > http://www.xmailserver.org/qspins.c
> 
> Slightly more than slightly ;)
> 
> You want to have a delay _outside_ the critical section as well, for
> multi-thread tests, otherwise the releasing CPU often just retakes
> the lock (in the unqueued lock case). As I said, most kernel code
> should _not_ be dropping and retaking locks.

Yeah. ATM it mostly does double-takes.



- Davide


-
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/