Howard Hinnant wrote: [...]
Alexander, I have no doubt that you will see problems with this implementation, and I appreciate your comments.
Get rid of yield. With yield you basically have a spinlock, not a general purpose mutex. Think of a uniprocessor [under priority scheduling rules] with some higher priority thread contending for a lock currently owned by some lower priority thread.
Could you please comment specifically on how the lwarx, stwcx., isync and sync instructions do not address your concerns, thanks.
Use of op+isync for "op.hoist_load+hoist_store" (aka op.acquire) seem to be what everyone is doing out there (looks a bit strange if you ask me). For "op.sink_load+sink_store" (aka op.release) you can use lwsync+op (lightweight, oh well, form of sync). www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/eserver/articles/powerpc.html listman.redhat.com/archives/phil-list/2003-August/msg00039.html regards, alexander.