Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:05:19 -0500
From:      Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Slab allocator
Message-ID:  <20020227150519.A42681@unixdaemons.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271135290.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:41:50AM -0800
References:  <20020227143330.A34054@unixdaemons.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271135290.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:41:50AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> The idea of Per CPU caches is that only that CPU is accessing it so 
> therefore you shouldn't need a lock at all. unless you are protecting 
> against interrupts on your own processor
> and pre-emption. There are also ways to implement atomic
> operations on queues that require no locks at all.
> (e.g. using the test and swap instruction)

  Yes, that's exactly the point. You have to protect against pre-emption
and interrupts.

-- 
Bosko Milekic
bmilekic@unixdaemons.com
bmilekic@FreeBSD.org


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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020227150519.A42681>