From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 13 8:14:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from oden.exmandato.se (oden.exmandato.se [192.71.33.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB0D37B914 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se) Received: from servicefactory.se (root@oden.exmandato.se [192.71.33.1]) by oden.exmandato.se (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15732; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:14:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3996BB57.D5ECCF0A@servicefactory.se> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:14:31 +0200 From: Jonas Bulow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wes@softweyr.com Subject: Re: IPC, shared memory, syncronization References: <39952437.EFCAA381@servicefactory.se> <39962001.35378CFE@softweyr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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