Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:57:50 -0500 (EST) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@dsuper.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MP: per-CPU mbuf allocation lists Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010311854240.37200-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <200010312344.QAA18978@usr09.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Terry Lambert wrote: > On the other hand, we know that significant concurrency can > be achieved, even with a single Big Giant Lock, by removing > resources from the conflict domain, rather than moving them > to private conflict domains. Per CPU resources simply do not > need locking or mutexes or atomic_t or similar protection: > they are inherently MP-safe. Is this 100% accurate? Don't we still need to protect even the per-CPU lists with a lock just in case we get an interrupt and get rescheduled because of a higher priority thread that wants execution? Is this possible? If it isn't the case, then ignore the question, but if it is, I agree that it still makes sense to have per-CPU resources available, just because it the lock contention is minimized. > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010311854240.37200-100000>