Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:55:21 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? Message-ID: <9064.1046627721@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Mar 2003 04:06:41 %2B1100." <20030303034332.Y30986-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030303034332.Y30986-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> > My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf" >> > to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the >> > overhead of 5.0-R. The lack of cmpxchg8 makes the locking horribly >> > expensive. >> >> Actually, the lack of cmpxchg8 only makes locking more expensive. It's > ^^^^ > >I.e., strictly more expensive, but not much more. Bruce, it is not a matter of the relative expensiveness of the various implementations of locking primitives, its a matter of the cummulative weight of all the locks we add to the system. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9064.1046627721>