Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:01:15 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Andrew Reilly" <a.reilly@lake.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "objtrm" problem probably found (was Re: Stuck in "objtrm") Message-ID: <199907130601.XAA04654@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:00:05 %2B1000." <19990713160005.B94421@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 10:38:03PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> > I said:
> > > than indirect function calls on some architectures: inline
> > > branched code. So you still have a global variable selecting
> > > locked/non-locked, but it's a boolean, rather than a pointer.
> > > Your atomic macros are then { if (atomic_lock) asm("lock;foo");
> > > else asm ("foo"); }
> >
> > This requires you to have all the methods present at compile time,
> > which defeats the entire purpose of dynamic method loading.
>
> Pardon? I didn't see a discussion of dynamic loading anywhere
> here. We were referring to tiny inlined assembly language routines.
> The existing implementation is #defines in a C header file.
Uh, no, I was asking about the overhead involved in indirect function
calls specifically because there are instances where fast indirect
methods would allow us to greatly improve the generality of parts of
the FreeBSD kernel and modules. This includes code where we are
currently using compile-time defines that require us to trade
performance for generality.
--
\\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith
\\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org
\\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.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?199907130601.XAA04654>