RE: volatile and atomic_t/spinlock_t

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> So is
>
>	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v));
>
> supposed to work? Or should that be 
>
>	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v))
>		cpu_relax();
>
> as well and all the volatiles can/should go away?

cpu_relax() is a really good idea in every spinloop on
hyper-threaded cores.  It lets the h/w know that we aren't
doing anything useful here, so resources and power can be
diverted to other threads sharing the core.

Avoiding the need for volatile or other compiler optimizer
defeating tricks is a side benefit.

-Tony
-
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/

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