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: "David Boreham" <david_list at boreham dot org>
To: <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:04:43 -0800
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> <200211261656.RAA23131@max.zk-i.med.uni-muenchen.de>

> > 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.

That's good. And good that you know for a fact (presumably 
you've run tests to be so sure).

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
- Re: malloc() and spinlocks
  - From: Wolfram Gloger

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