> yes, true. Keep in mind that this only affects the slow path. The above
> spinlock would be implemented as a function anyway (we do not want to
> inline it), and in that case the slow path can eg. use queued spinlocks
> (spinlock chains through on-stack variables) or exponential backoff, or
> whatever technique.
OK, I've misunderstood that the code You suggested was a replacement of the
"lock" one
while this is only a fast test, failing it CPUs falls executing the "lock"
code.
Cheers,
Davide.
-- "Debian, the Freedom in Freedom."
- 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/