Re: About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel.

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 09:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Willy,
> 
> I think at least I can remove the LOCK instruction when the lock is already 
> held by someone else and enter the spinning wait directly, right?
If the lock is already held by someone else, the cpu is just going to
burn cycles until it's not. So why do you care?

-- 
Brandon Niemczyk

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel.
    • From: <[email protected]>
  • Re: About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel.
    • From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
  • Re: About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel.
    • From: <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] RealTimeSync Patch
• Next by Date: pc_keyb: controller jammed (0xA7)
• Previous by thread: Re: About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel.
• Next by thread: Volatile vs Non-Volatile Spin Locks on SMP.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]