Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel

David S. Miller
2001-03-21T11:32:07Z

george anzinger writes:
> By the by, if a preemption lock is all that is needed the patch defines
> it and it is rather fast (an inc going in and a dec & test comming
> out). A lot faster than a spin lock with its "LOCK" access. A preempt
> lock does not need to be "LOCK"ed because the only contender is the same
> cpu.

So we would have to invoke this thing around every set of
smp_processor_id() references?

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com