lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

> At some point -- but that was before queued locks -- I noticed that for
> i386 spin unlocks the call sequence for the sub function is actually
> larger in code than the actual spin unlock operation and for x86-64 it
> was about the same.

spin unlocks seem to be properly inlined anyway, so that should be fine.
My concern here is the non-inlining of spin locks, for which I don't think
your argument above is also valid, right?

Thanks,

--
Jiri Kosina


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-01 14:43    [W:1.318 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site