Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:12:49 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? Message-ID: <3E6257B1.32AB9644@mindspring.com> References: <9064.1046627721@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. Bruce's "make world" benchmark gave coverage of the cumulative weight, in support of his point. -- Terry 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?3E6257B1.32AB9644>