Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:14:31 +0200 From: Jonas Bulow <jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wes@softweyr.com Subject: Re: IPC, shared memory, syncronization Message-ID: <3996BB57.D5ECCF0A@servicefactory.se> References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0008112101590.6759-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov> <39952437.EFCAA381@servicefactory.se> <39962001.35378CFE@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Peters wrote: > > Jonas Bulow wrote: > > > > Ronald G Minnich wrote: > > > > > > I don't know about the "bsd" or whatever way. If you're doing real > > > parallel programming and want real performance, you'll use a test-and-set > > > like function that uses the low-level machine instructions for same. > > > > That is exacly what I'm looking for! I found it to be overkill to > > involve the kernel just because I wanted to have a context switch during > > the "test-and-set". > > Precisely how do you expect to "have a context switch" without "involving > the kernel"? Sorry, I missed an important word in the sentence above, namely "not". I don't want to have a context switch during the test-and-set operation. Now, when I found the code in lockdflt.c (rtle-elf) that doesn't seem to be a problem. /j To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3996BB57.D5ECCF0A>