From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu May 25  1:44:37 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFA837BDF6
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Thu, 25 May 2000 01:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com)
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@[127.0.0.1])
	by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA19436;
	Thu, 25 May 2000 02:44:20 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200005250844.CAA19436@berserker.bsdi.com>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>,
	Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware 
From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:44:20 -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


	The good news is that the actual implementation of the
mutexs is machine dependent and can change wildly over different
architectures with no need for the callers to know.

Chuck

"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote on: Thu, 25 May 2000 01:31:23 PDT
}>     On intel anyway, subroutine calls are *cheap*, especially compared
}>     to the overhead of a locked instruction or even an L1 cache miss.
}
}I don't believe this is true on all the architectures FreeBSD is
}anticipated to run on in the "near future", however.
}
}- Jordan



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message