Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:20:32 -0700 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reference count invariants in a fine-grained threaded environment Message-ID: <200010312220.PAA04420@berserker.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:08:39 PST." <20001031140838.A22110@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
} }However it's impossible to stick a mutex into a 'uint'. } I agree that we really want to have atomic types. However you are making the assumption that there is a one to one mapping between atomic variables and mutice when they are implemented as mutexs. In reality these mutice are so shortly held that a many to one mapping works just fine. It may be that the size required to hold the variable is just the variable size where the address of the variable is used to compute the mutex which protects the variable. Having real types does lets us do things like store a pointer to the mutex with the data if we wanted to. 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?200010312220.PAA04420>