Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:05:19 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slab allocator Message-ID: <20020227150519.A42681@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271135290.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:41:50AM -0800 References: <20020227143330.A34054@unixdaemons.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271135290.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > The idea of Per CPU caches is that only that CPU is accessing it so > therefore you shouldn't need a lock at all. unless you are protecting > against interrupts on your own processor > and pre-emption. There are also ways to implement atomic > operations on queues that require no locks at all. > (e.g. using the test and swap instruction) Yes, that's exactly the point. You have to protect against pre-emption and interrupts. -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@unixdaemons.com bmilekic@FreeBSD.org 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?20020227150519.A42681>