On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:00:52PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote: >I am not sure, that is why I wrote "probably". But from what I see there is >already exclusive access guaranteed by the mx.lock() call, unless of course I >am completely misunderstanding something.
I don't think you are. I missed this too when I saw your patch and had the same reaction that Corinna did. I think this patch should be ok to apply. >I can tell you that "lock; cmpxchg" pair of instruction is really not as cheap >as it looks. Especially on SMP systems. It takes above 100 of cycles on >contemporary CPUs. Do you have a reference which states this? 100s of cycles sounds like an incredible amount of overhead. cgf