Messages in this thread | | | From | Bret Indrelee <> | Subject | RE: possible spinlock optimizations | Date | Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:41:51 -0500 |
| |
Since spinlocks are only supposed to be held for a VERY short time, are you sure that allowing the CPU to do something else will speed things up?
Allowing an interrupt in can amount to a fairly serious delay in aquiring the spinlock. You cause the slow path to become even slower by enabling interrupts.
It seems to me that if the spinlock is held that long, it would have been better to have used a semaphore for the mutual exclusion instead.
-Bret
------------------------------------------------------------- SBS Technologies, Connectivity Products ... solutions for real-time connectivity
Bret Indrelee, Engineer SBS Technologies, Inc., Connectivity Products 1284 Corporate Center Drive, St. Paul MN 55121 Direct: (651) 905-4731 Main: (651) 905-4700 Fax: (651) 905-4701 E-mail: bindrelee@sbs-cp.com http://www.sbs.com -------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |