From owner-freebsd-arch Thu May 25 9:28:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (adsl-63-206-88-224.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.206.88.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940C337C92A for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 09:28:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02002; Thu, 25 May 2000 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200005251630.JAA02002@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 May 2000 01:31:23 PDT." <82645.959243483@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:30:05 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 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. The point that you may be missing is that we only need care about this on platforms where we need to conditionalise the mutex implementation. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message