This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: malloc() and spinlocks

From: Wolfram Gloger <Wolfram dot Gloger at dent dot med dot uni-muenchen dot de>
To: david_list at boreham dot org
Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:56:30 +0100 ("MET)
Subject: Re: malloc() and spinlocks
References: <200211251733.14550.l.lunak@suse.cz> <0a2401c294a1$38ab9690$220aa8c0@mtbrook.boreham.org> <200211261231.01206.l.lunak@suse.cz> <0d0f01c29560$c4dd9450$220aa8c0@mtbrook.boreham.org>

Hi,

> Generally the spinlock style locks perform better in threaded
> applications on SMP hardware anyway. I'm not aware of the
> motivations behind choosing the more heavy lock code,

It was just portability.

> but a
> change to spinlocks probably won't hurt threaded applications.

In fact, threaded applications will benefit just as non-threaded ones.
It was unintentional that the spinlocks weren't enabled on ix86 in
glibc.

Regards,
Wolfram.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: David Boreham
- Re: malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: Lubos Lunak
- Re: malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: David Boreham
- Re: malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: Lubos Lunak
- Re: malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: David Boreham

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]