Neal H. Walfield, le Sun 10 Nov 2013 11:38:04 +0100, a écrit : > At Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:21:51 +0100, > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > + pthread_spin_lock (&lock); > > > + totalthreads--; > > > + nreqthreads--; > > > + pthread_spin_unlock (&lock); > > It might be a good idea use atomic operations instead of the spin lock > (which is what the spin lock is using behind the scenes anyways).
It may not be possible: further down there is a decision taken depending on totalthreads/nreqthreads becoming 1, and thus you need a spinlock to make that coherent with the ++/--. Samuel
