On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > hm, current->spinlock_depth should work pretty well i believe, no? That
> > one is SMP-safe as well. It doesnt have any global cacheline problems
> > either.
> Agreed, but what is the point of it? Now every spinlock has to look up
> current. The nice spinlock code that used to be 2 instructions (or 1
> for the unlock case) suddenly became 5 or more. No, thank you.
> Especially as I don't believe it buys you anything on SMP.
yep, i agree that it's overkill for SMP. 99% of RT applications are UP, so
the global depth-counter should be enough.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:27 EST