From: Bill Wade (bill.wade_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-07 10:43:37
> From: William Kempf [mailto:sirwillard_at_[hidden]]
> Uhmmm... I'd have to see a concrete example. Other than a slight
> performance hit I can think of no reason why the locks must overlap
> this way.
Consider single-linked list traversal. To move from node A (which is
currently locked) to *A.next you need to get a lock to *A.next and then
release your A lock. Compared to locking the entire list, this allows
essentially one processor per node rather than one processor per list.