Date: 12 Jun 1999 14:22:42 -0700 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@home.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: simple_lock() ? Message-ID: <m3u2sddsgt.fsf@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com> In-Reply-To: Alfred Perlstein's message of "Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:09:16 -0500 (EST)" References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990612150817.14320W-100000@cygnus.rush.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> writes: > On 12 Jun 1999, Arun Sharma wrote: > > > Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> writes: > > > > > The simple_lock/unlock/try_lock stuff looks like precursor work towards > > > finer grained SMP. Is this true? right now it looks like it amounts > > > to a NOP in SMP and UP systems, is this also true? > > > > It is a nop in UP systems, but calls some locking primitive on a SMP > > system. > > because of the BGL i don't see why his is nessesary... > > confused, Here's a guess: the comments in simplelock.s indicate that the locking code came from 4.4BSD lite2. But you're right - in a giant locked kernel, they are wasteful. -Arun 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?m3u2sddsgt.fsf>