From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Nov 12 16:38:23 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBBC37B416
	for <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11614 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 00:38:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender <jhb@FreeBSD.org>)
          by mail5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>; 13 Nov 2001 00:38:19 -0000
Message-ID: <XFMail.011112163814.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011112185746.36592C-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:38:14 -0800 (PST)
From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not.
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org,
	Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>,
	Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


On 13-Nov-01 Robert Watson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> 
>> John Baldwin wrote:
>> > the refcount for now, but I still have patches that
>> > some people don't like for implementing a simple refcount API just using
>> > atomic operations.
>> 
>> Please commit these.  Using mutexes in this instance is just a happy way
>> to put the performance in the toilet. 
> 
> My recollection is that there was some concern about the size of the unit
> of atomic operation across platforms.  I may not recall correctly, but my
> understanding was that some platforms substantially limited the potential
> size of the target of the atomic operation to less than the normal
> arithmetic unit size.  Again, subject to the fallibility of my
> recollection, the maximum unit for atomic operations on Sparc64 was
> 24-bit, despite the native register size being 64-bit. 

No, that was on sparc32, not sparc64.  All of our current architectures would
be fine with it.

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

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