Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com> Cc: dfr@nlsystems.com, jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, mike@ducky.net Subject: Re: "objtrm" problem probably found (was Re: Stuck in "objtrm") Message-ID: <199907121647.JAA70249@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199907121032.GAA14268@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> We don't need the lock prefix for the current SMP implementation. A lock
:> prefix would be needed in a multithreaded implementation but should not be
:> added unless the kernel is an SMP kernel otherwise UP performance would
:> suffer.
:>
:> --
:> Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com
:> Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037
:>
:Lock prefix should be added to kernel modules if we want a single set for
:both SMP and UP.
:
:-lq
Yah, definitely for simple things like this, it will save us a lot
of work in the future. And so I have.
p.s. I'm pretty sure that the lock prefix costs nothing on a UP system,
and probably wouldn't be noticed on an SMP system either because the
write-allocation overhead is already pretty bad. But I haven't tested
it.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?199907121647.JAA70249>