That is, it checks the external condition after each pause. Which can't produce the problems that .NET produced.
And that's why I had expected eloff to give even one example that supports his claim, since what I can find is only what cesarb claims "it's a loop over the pause instruction, but the loop condition checks the lock value"
The whole thread is about if the loop is containing pause, but without the checks of the external condition (but instead just with the counter, like in the offending .NET example from the original article) exists in Linux kernel. If somebody claims that the .NET implementation is not unique in its carelessness of using just a big counter loop over the pause (which appears to be to me: that .NET does something unexpected) (s)he should support that.
(That I ask for the support for "extraordinary claim" in the thread where only one side makes it should be understood, but it seems some here vote "down" without understanding what is being discussed at all -- it's absurd having to summarize the whole discussion in the reply to the "extraordinary claim" in which I for the evidence)
I've never disputed that kernel uses pause (of course it does), but the claim of eloff which he states in the post to which I reply:
"where it starts off with one pause instruction, then goes to multiple, then moves to more drastic back-off techniques"
That's what appears that eloff claims in his post, that he has
"seen some"
where he effectively disputes the previous claim of cesarb: "it's a loop over the pause instruction, but the loop condition checks the lock value"
Your example doesn't support the claim of eloff, and supports the claim of cesarb:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.2/source/kernel/sched/sc...
That is, it checks the external condition after each pause. Which can't produce the problems that .NET produced.
And that's why I had expected eloff to give even one example that supports his claim, since what I can find is only what cesarb claims "it's a loop over the pause instruction, but the loop condition checks the lock value"
The whole thread is about if the loop is containing pause, but without the checks of the external condition (but instead just with the counter, like in the offending .NET example from the original article) exists in Linux kernel. If somebody claims that the .NET implementation is not unique in its carelessness of using just a big counter loop over the pause (which appears to be to me: that .NET does something unexpected) (s)he should support that.
(That I ask for the support for "extraordinary claim" in the thread where only one side makes it should be understood, but it seems some here vote "down" without understanding what is being discussed at all -- it's absurd having to summarize the whole discussion in the reply to the "extraordinary claim" in which I for the evidence)