From owner-freebsd-smp  Tue Oct 31 10:57:22 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7828A37B4CF; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@localhost.bsdi.com [127.0.0.1])
	by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02433;
	Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:57:09 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com)
Message-Id: <200010311857.LAA02433@berserker.bsdi.com>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
Cc: Cedric Berger <cedric@wireless-networks.com>,
	Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Reference count invariants in a fine-grained threaded environment 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:21:10 PST."
             <20001031102110.V22110@fw.wintelcom.net> 
From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:57:09 -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Alfred,

	I'm a little surprised. I thought you won the argument to
use atomic operations as long as long as all the needed operations
such as the decrement and test, and examine without modification
were present. You certainly convinced me. I though we had got to
the point of just working out what we wanted to do for size.

	This is of course only where a mutex isn't already required
for internal data integrity.

Chuck


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