Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- From: Bruce Evans <brde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:44:38 +1000 (EST)
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Bruce Evans wrote:
atomic_*long() shouldn't exist (and doesn't exist in my version) since
longs should actually be long (twice as long as registers) and thus
especially epensive to lock.
Well unfortunately this is not how the compiler implements them on the architectures that we support. So in this case long is 32bit on 32bit machines and 64bit on 64bit machines and as such requires each architecture to treat them specially. I don't think it's unreasonable to add an atomic_fetchadd_long() that conforms to the definition of long that is actually in use.
The compiler has nothing to do with this. The implementation is FreeBSD's
and it is poor, like I said.
[Context lost to top posting]
Bruce
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- References:
- Lockless uidinfo.
- From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek
- Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek
- Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Lockless uidinfo.
- Prev by Date: Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- Next by Date: Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- Previous by thread: Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- Next by thread: Re: Lockless uidinfo.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|