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

2005-07-14 Thread Brandon Niemczyk
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 cy

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

2005-07-14 Thread multisyncfe991
rom: "Willy Tarreau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:16 PM Subject: Re: About a change to the implementation of spin lock in 2.6.12 kernel. Hi, On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:20:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,

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

2005-07-13 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi, On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:20:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I found _spin_lock used a LOCK instruction to make the following > operation "decb %0" atomic. As you know, LOCK instruction alone takes > almost 70 clock cycles to finish and this add lots of cost to the > _spin_