From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 12 21: 6: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from obie.softweyr.com (obie.softweyr.com [204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB41137BC41 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:06:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (Foolstrustident!@homer.softweyr.com [204.68.178.39]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA13303; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:05:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <39962001.35378CFE@softweyr.com> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:11:45 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.1-RC i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonas Bulow Cc: Ronald G Minnich , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPC, shared memory, syncronization References: <39952437.EFCAA381@servicefactory.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jonas Bulow wrote: > > Ronald G Minnich wrote: > > > > I don't know about the "bsd" or whatever way. If you're doing real > > parallel programming and want real performance, you'll use a test-and-set > > like function that uses the low-level machine instructions for same. > > That is exacly what I'm looking for! I found it to be overkill to > involve the kernel just because I wanted to have a context switch during > the "test-and-set". Precisely how do you expect to "have a context switch" without "involving the kernel"? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message