From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 12 9:49:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D0114FD2 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:49:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id JAA70249; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199907121647.JAA70249@apollo.backplane.com> To: Luoqi Chen 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") References: <199907121032.GAA14268@lor.watermarkgroup.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message