From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261704AbVGNQ0z (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:26:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261592AbVGNQ0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:26:54 -0400 Received: from 37.195.62.64.in-arpa.com ([64.62.195.37]:2829 "EHLO bniemczyk.is-a-geek.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262205AbVGNQ0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:26:37 -0400 Subject: Re: About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel. From: Brandon Niemczyk Reply-To: brandon@snprogramming.com To: multisyncfe991@hotmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20050714051653.GP8907@alpha.home.local> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: SN Programming Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:26:38 -0400 Message-Id: <1121358399.4685.9.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2nb1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 09:21 -0700, multisyncfe991@hotmail.com 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