Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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.
Bruce's "make world" benchmark gave coverage of the cumulative weight, in support of his point. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
