Right.
To avoid the CAS loop, you can use Mutex.
mutex_lock();
//critical section;
mutex_unlock();
Thanks,
xiaofeng
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Aleksey Shipilev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO here:
>
> 1. Using CAS infers using busy-loop, e.g. "we are trying until
> operation succeed". You might tolerate spinning there by using PAUSE
> instruction or some other way.
> 2. How about "static int counter = 0; #define INC() counter++;"? It
> will be done in runtime though.
>
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > Could you please help?
> >
> > 1. Is it possible to add to a thread safe linked list using CAS
> > without a busy loop?
> >
> > void add_site(LogSite* log_site) {
> > LogSite** p_site_head = (LogSite**) &get_logger()->log_site;
> > LogSite* old_value = *p_site_head;
> > do {
> > log_site->next = (LogSite*) old_value;
> > (LogSite*) old_value = (LogSite*) apr_atomic_casptr((volatile
> > void **) p_site_head,
> > (void*) log_site, log_site->next);
> > } while (old_value != log_site->next); // busy loop
> > }
> >
> > 2. Is it possible to create an auto-increment macro within a
> > compilation unit using C preprocessor?
> >
> > #define INC() ...
> >
> > INC() // == 1
> > INC() // == 2
> > ...
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your expertise.
> > --
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei
> >
>
--
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
