Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:17:30 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slab allocator Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271210460.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020227150519.A42681@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > The idea of Per CPU caches is that only that CPU is accessing it so > > therefore you shouldn't need a lock at all. unless you are protecting > > against interrupts on your own processor > > and pre-emption. There are also ways to implement atomic > > operations on queues that require no locks at all. > > (e.g. using the test and swap instruction) > > Yes, that's exactly the point. You have to protect against pre-emption > and interrupts. maybe use a critical section instead.. or better, a test/swap or, both... but it sounds like you need the lock anyhow because as you said.. it is possible a recently pre-empted thread may continue to use the pool of it's old processor for a short moment, (I'm not sure I like that idea) > > -- > Bosko Milekic > bmilekic@unixdaemons.com > bmilekic@FreeBSD.org > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271210460.97278-100000>