spinlock

问题 As of macOS 10.12, OSSpinLock has been deprecated. The XCode error messages urge me to use os_unfair_lock_unlock() instead. As a legacy of some open source stuff I'm relying on, I'm using RegexKitLite from 2010. How can I convert the spin lock type? Simple unlocking and locking I can manage, but these comparisons are giving me headache: if(rkl_cacheSpinLock != (OSSpinLock)0) { ... } rkl_cacheSpinLock is of type os_unfair_lock and has been initialized. OSSpinLock seems to be of type int , so

问题 As of macOS 10.12, OSSpinLock has been deprecated. The XCode error messages urge me to use os_unfair_lock_unlock() instead. As a legacy of some open source stuff I'm relying on, I'm using RegexKitLite from 2010. How can I convert the spin lock type? Simple unlocking and locking I can manage, but these comparisons are giving me headache: if(rkl_cacheSpinLock != (OSSpinLock)0) { ... } rkl_cacheSpinLock is of type os_unfair_lock and has been initialized. OSSpinLock seems to be of type int , so

问题 To start with, consider release semantics. If a data set is protected with a spinlock (mutex, etc. - no matters what exact implementation is used; for now, assume 0 means it's free and 1 - busy). After changing of the data set, a thread stores 0 to spinlock address. To force visibility of all previous actions before storing 0 to spinlock address, storing is executed with release semantics, that means all previous reads and writes shall be made visible to other threads before this storing. It

问题 OpenGL red book version 9 (OpenGL 4.5) example 11.13 is Simple Per-Pixel Mutex . It uses imageAtomicCompSwap in a do {} while() loop to take a per-pixel lock to prevent simultaneous access to a shared resouce between pixel shader invocations corresponding to the same pixel coordinate. layout (binding = 0, r32ui) uniform volatile coherent uimage2D lock_image; void main(void) { ivec2 pos = ivec2(gl_FragCoord.xy); // spinlock - acquire uint lock_available; do { lock_available =

问题 I'm trying to understand the logic behind how this class was written, and when I should and shouldn't use it. Any insight would be appreciated internal struct SpinLock { private volatile int lockHeld; private readonly static int processorCount; public bool IsHeld { get { return this.lockHeld != 0; } } static SpinLock() { SpinLock.processorCount = Environment.ProcessorCount; } public void Enter() { if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this.lockHeld, 1, 0) != 0) { this.EnterSpin(); } } private

问题 This question already has answers here : Closed 7 years ago . Possible Duplicate: Wake up thread blocked on accept() call I am writing a small server which listening for connections (accepting them and passing them to worker threads) until a custom stop signal is sent. If I use blocking sockets, then my main accept loop cannot break on the custom stop signal being sent. However, I wish to avoid having a busy-wait/spinlock loop with a non-blocking socket. What I want is for my main accept loop

问题 This question already has answers here : Closed 7 years ago . Possible Duplicate: Wake up thread blocked on accept() call I am writing a small server which listening for connections (accepting them and passing them to worker threads) until a custom stop signal is sent. If I use blocking sockets, then my main accept loop cannot break on the custom stop signal being sent. However, I wish to avoid having a busy-wait/spinlock loop with a non-blocking socket. What I want is for my main accept loop

问题 Say for example, I have an exclusive atomic-ops-based spin lock implementation as below: bool TryLock(volatile TInt32 * pFlag) { return !(AtomicOps::Exchange32(pFlag, 1) == 1); } void Lock (volatile TInt32 * pFlag) { while (AtomicOps::Exchange32(pFlag, 1) == 1) { AtomicOps::ThreadYield(); } } void Unlock (volatile TInt32 * pFlag) { *pFlag = 0; // is this ok? or here as well a atomicity is needed for load and store } Where AtomicOps::Exchange32 is implemented on windows using

问题 Say for example, I have an exclusive atomic-ops-based spin lock implementation as below: bool TryLock(volatile TInt32 * pFlag) { return !(AtomicOps::Exchange32(pFlag, 1) == 1); } void Lock (volatile TInt32 * pFlag) { while (AtomicOps::Exchange32(pFlag, 1) == 1) { AtomicOps::ThreadYield(); } } void Unlock (volatile TInt32 * pFlag) { *pFlag = 0; // is this ok? or here as well a atomicity is needed for load and store } Where AtomicOps::Exchange32 is implemented on windows using

问题 I read that on a system with 1 CPU and non preemtive linux kernel (2.6.x) a spin_lock call is equivalent to an empty call, and thus implemented that way. I can't understand that: shouldn't it be equivalent to a sleep on a mutex? Even on non-preemtive kernels interrupt handlers may still be executed for example or I might call a function that would put the original thread to sleep. So it's not true that an empty spin_lock call is "safe" as it would be if it was implemented as a mutex. Is there