Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:52:32 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely9.cicely.de> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Subject: Re: When to use atomic_ functions? (was: 64 bit counters) Message-ID: <3C33D580.50B5BCAA@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.020102152920.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200201030002.g0302Eo60575@apollo.backplane.com> <20020103003214.GC53199@cicely9.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bernd Walter wrote: > You need to hold the mutex while writing and reading. > If you hold the mutex only while writing another CPU might still use > old cached values. Unless there are two sounts that MUST remain synchornized for correct operation, you don't *care* if someone gets the stale value. Ask yourself: what's the worst case failure scenario that would result? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C33D580.50B5BCAA>