Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:30:33 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely9.cicely.de> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When to use atomic_ functions? (was: 64 bit counters) Message-ID: <20020101213033.GB9899@cicely9.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <200201012048.g01KmYr01192@mass.dis.org> References: <20020101100822.B96092@cicely8.cicely.de> <200201012048.g01KmYr01192@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 12:48:34PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > MBs are not needed for the variable itself, but they are making this > > family of functions very expensive. > > It's not very wise to handle counters with atomic_ functions unless > > the need to have MBs in them is not removed. > > It's imperative to use atomic operations for counters on SMP systems. But there is absolutely no need for MBs just to handle counters. If they are used for counters they shouldn't be used for syncronisation. The current situation is quite irritating and I absolutely don't know if the MBs are wrong or the use of the functions to handle counters. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de 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?20020101213033.GB9899>