Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:57:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, peter@netplex.com.au, alc@cs.rice.edu, tlambert@primenet.com, bakul@torrentnet.com, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: high-efficiency SMP locks - submission for review Message-ID: <199906290057.RAA07616@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990628091426.10211B-100000@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Jun 28, 99 09:16:44 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd say that we probably wouldn't support SMP on 386 and 486 processors.. > and in UP those locks that need atomicity would be optimised away. > > We WILL need locking in UP when we move to kernel threads, but that > doesn't require bus atomicity. No one is currently bothering with anything but the Intel MESI coherency model for SMP, anyway, so I don't understand the relevence of bus coherency to the argument. My only point is that the code needs to degrade gracefully (e.g. without rebuilding your kernel with a magic doohickey flipped on or off for no obvious reason). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906290057.RAA07616>