Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-37,: Re: spin_lock and linux philosophy question...

# Re: spin_lock and linux philosophy question...

Momchil Velikov (velco@fadata.bg)
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:56:11 +0300

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Robert Dinse: "Re: spin_lock and linux philosophy question..."
- Previous message: Petru Paler: "Re: [PATCH] ESS1869 fix"
- Maybe in reply to: Robert Dinse: "spin_lock and linux philosophy question..."

Robert Dinse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >
> > Spin locks are for cases when it is expected the lock to be held for
> > very short intervals, thus saving the sleep/wakeup overhead. For other
> > cases there are sleep locks (whatever they are called in each OS), where
> > indeed the CPU is sent to do something else.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -velco
>
> Thank you for the short explanation, and thank you David for the reference
> as I really do want to understand these things.

You can also use a spinlock in an interrupt handler, where you can't sleep at
all.

Regards,
-velco

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Robert Dinse: "Re: spin_lock and linux philosophy question..."
- Previous message: Petru Paler: "Re: [PATCH] ESS1869 fix"
- Maybe in reply to: Robert Dinse: "spin_lock and linux philosophy question..."