Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:57:09 -0700 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Cedric Berger <cedric@wireless-networks.com>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reference count invariants in a fine-grained threaded environment Message-ID: <200010311857.LAA02433@berserker.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:21:10 PST." <20001031102110.V22110@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred, I'm a little surprised. I thought you won the argument to use atomic operations as long as long as all the needed operations such as the decrement and test, and examine without modification were present. You certainly convinced me. I though we had got to the point of just working out what we wanted to do for size. This is of course only where a mutex isn't already required for internal data integrity. Chuck 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?200010311857.LAA02433>