From owner-freebsd-smp  Sat Jun 12 12:49:56 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Received: from cygnus.rush.net (cygnus.rush.net [209.45.245.133])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBE3150FB
	for <smp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 12:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@rush.net)
Received: from localhost (bright@localhost)
	by cygnus.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA29473;
	Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:09:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:09:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>
To: Arun Sharma <adsharma@home.com>
Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: simple_lock() ?
In-Reply-To: <m31zfhfj5j.fsf@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990612150817.14320W-100000@cygnus.rush.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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, 
-Alfred :)




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message