Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:40:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jiri Kosina <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |