Subject: Re: Lock benchmarks
To: Nathan J. Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 09/18/2002 15:36:16
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 06:31:59PM -0400, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> The pthread_spin_lock() function is specified as a "you are likely to
> lose" function. It would be easy to make it loop around
> __cpu_simple_lock_try(), but it is under no obligation whatsoever to
> detect deadlock (which would anyway only be valid if the *calling
> thread* already held the lock).
Sure, but the EDEADLK return value is allowed by POSIX, and I don't see
a good reason why we shouldn't support it.
> There's a good reason that the internal spinlock primitives in the
> pthread library are different from pthread_spin_lock().
Yes, knew that part, at least :-)
-- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>