From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Mar 28 11: 0:43 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9425937B41B; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8])
          by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020328190020.WHGH2951.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>;
          Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:00:20 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA53417;
	Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:50:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>
Cc: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: SMP safe reference counting
In-Reply-To: <20020328132041.GA24734@cicely8.cicely.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203281049150.53382-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Bernd Walter wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:34:59PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> > 
> > > Apparently, On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:51:57PM -0500,
> > > 
> > > We support 386 still?
> > > 
> > We certainly support it but I think that for 386 we can ignore the concept
> > of SMP and make versions that are not SMP safe but DO
> > satisfy the basic functionality..
> > 
> > i.e. the '386 version of atomic ops need not be atomic :-)
> 
> They need to be atomic in the sense of preemtion.

All instructions are atomic from preemtion
but they don't need t be atomic on a bus-cycle basis.

> 
> -- 
> B.Walter              COSMO-Project         http://www.cosmo-project.de
> ticso@cicely.de         Usergroup           info@cosmo-project.de
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
> 


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