From owner-freebsd-smp Sun Jun 27 16:30:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from osgroup.com (unknown [38.229.41.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3D91518E for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 16:30:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stan@osgroup.com) Received: from stan166 ([38.229.41.237]) by osgroup.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA31902 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:19:18 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:32:20 -0500 Message-ID: <01BEC0CB.642E90E0.stan@osgroup.com> From: Constantine Shkolny Reply-To: "stan@osgroup.com" To: "freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: RE: high-efficiency SMP locks - submission for review Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:32:19 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sunday, June 27, 1999 5:54 PM, Bakul Shah [SMTP:bakul@torrentnet.com] wrote: > Has anyone taken a serious look at wait-free or lock-free or > NonBlocking Synchronization (NBS) primitives? There are > papers on this going back 27 years or so. Recent papers by > Michael Greenwald & David Cheriton, Michael Scott etc. may be > more accessible. > > The basic idea is to rely on a processor/hardware provided > atomic compare-and-swap or double compare-and-swap > instruction to update data structures atomically. If the > update does not succeed you retry or do something else (but > the data structure remains consistent either way). This is how NT does this. The folks who wrote it must have had the papers in their library :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message