Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel

[David S. Miller]

george anzinger writes:
 > By the by, if a preemption lock is all that is needed the patch defines
 > it and it is rather fast (an inc going in and a dec & test comming
 > out).  A lot faster than a spin lock with its "LOCK" access.  A preempt
 > lock does not need to be "LOCK"ed because the only contender is the same
 > cpu.

So we would have to invoke this thing around every set of
smp_processor_id() references?

Later,
David S. Miller
[e-mail]