[boost] Re: [shared_ptr] PPC implementations updated

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-08 15:14:33

Peter Dimov wrote:

> It might be good enough anyway... it's only two more instructions, 
> after all. stwcx. is uncontended on zero. 

It is contended on strong count and uncontended on weak count. On MP, 
lock()ers will simply play Ping-Pong with zero fighting each other. 
Even if you change the code and do that silly "cleanup write" out of 
the loop, it will still increase traffic, I'm afraid. So, again, get 
rid of it unless the issue is provably real (not a myth created from 
miscommunication or whatever).

regards,
alexander.