Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:36:39 -0500 From: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Bakul Shah <bakul@torrentnet.com>, julian@whistle.com, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: high-efficiency SMP locks - submission for review Message-ID: <19990628003639.N2738@cs.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906280521.WAA27383@usr04.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 05:21:05AM %2B0000 References: <199906272253.SAA04385@chai.torrentnet.com> <199906280521.WAA27383@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 05:21:05AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > I also have a slight problem with relying on a test-and-set > instruction any more complicated than that which can be > implemented with P/V semaphores. Many processors (e.g. MIPS) > don't have an atomic test and set, and you'd want to avoid > architecting against them ever working. 8-(. > That is true. They, including MIPS and Alpha, have something better: Load-locked and store conditional. :-) I think this is a non-issue. Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990628003639.N2738>