In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes: >On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> > My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary "umphf" >> > to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the >> > overhead of 5.0-R. The lack of cmpxchg8 makes the locking horribly >> > expensive. >> >> Actually, the lack of cmpxchg8 only makes locking more expensive. It's > ^^^^ > >I.e., strictly more expensive, but not much more.
Bruce, it is not a matter of the relative expensiveness of the various implementations of locking primitives, its a matter of the cummulative weight of all the locks we add to the system. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
