Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:08:39 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reference count invariants in a fine-grained threaded environment Message-ID: <20001031140838.A22110@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001031150244.58688G-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:14:08PM -0500 References: <20001031115506.Y22110@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1001031150244.58688G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> [001031 12:14] wrote: > > I refuse to comment on the various means by which atomic operations might > be implemented, as I am utterly unqualified to comment on that topic. :-) > I would be happy with atomic operations in the general case as long as > either (a) we provide an alternative that's easy to use for platforms that > don't have atomic increment and decrement, or (b) we don't care about > platforms without them. This is a moot point if there are no platforms > not supporting the atomic operation requirements, but I am not qualified > to make statements about that either. :-) My proposal offers a transparent implementation of 'a' via macro/inlines. On machines that don't support atomic ops we can stick a mutex into the struct hidden by atomic_t. However it's impossible to stick a mutex into a 'uint'. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001031140838.A22110>