On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:38:27AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > 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.
Currently it is already that it has to be
while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v))
cpu_relax();
Just like in __raw_spin_unlock_wait(). Oh well, I should have
checked more before posting...
-
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]
