malloc() and spinlocks

[Lubos Lunak]

On Tuesday 26 of November 2002 15:12, Wolfram Gloger wrote:
> > Isn't it better to have the fast inline non-recursive mutices provided
> > for _LIBC only use by the threading library (this could be something like
> > lll_mutex_lock for nptl and something similar for linuxthreads)?
>
> I agree it would be better to have this in a more general form.  If
> you (or anyone) provide(s) a patch with lll_mutex_lock... etc. macros,
> I'll gladly adapt thread-m.h.
>
> > The spinlocks below inline quite a lot of code, ideally it should be just
> > lock; xaddl; testl; jne lab_in_other_subsection
>
> I believe only mutex_lock is non-optimal and inlines a sizeable piece
> of code.  But it would be good to have this for non-i386 architectures
> too.

 Could you please enable the spinlocks for x86 now, before it gets forgotten? 
I don't care what kind of locking will be there, but webcvs still shows no 
change, so the slow mutexes are still used.

 Thanks

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SuSE CR, s.r.o.  e-mail: l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org
Drahobejlova 27  tel: +420 2 9654 2373
190 00 Praha 9   fax: +420 2 9654 2374
Czech Republic   http://www.suse.cz/