Re: [PATCH] remove LOCK_SECTION from x86_64 spin_lock asm

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> the ebp trick is nice, but forcing a formal stack frame for every
> function has global performance implications. Couldnt we define some
> sort of current-> field [or current_thread_info() field] that the
> spinlock code could set and clear, which field would be listened to by
> profile_pc(), so that the time spent spinning would be attributed to the
> callee? Something like:

I think the generic route is nice but wouldn't this break with the 
following.

taskA:
spin_lock(lockA); // contended
<interrupt>
int1:
spin_lock(lockB)

I was thinking along the likes of a per_cpu real_pc, but realised it falls 
prey to the same problem as above... Unless we have irq threads, then of 
course your solution works.

	Zwane

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/