On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2010-11-17 04:52, Matt Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Not true. Spinlocks must enter through mutex_spin_enter and adaptive mutexes
>> enter through mutex_enter. The corresponding is true for exiting as well.
>> The only reason mutex_vector_{enter,
On 2010-11-17 04:52, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2010-11-17 04:25, matthew green wrote:
The (my) problem is that rwlocks must use CAS as well, and I'm starting
to think that I have to use CAS for the mutex code as well, as I can't
seem to get mut
> - hppa seems to have a mutex implemented without cas. is it broken?
FWIW, the sparc implementation is only broken on SMP.
.mrg.
On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2010-11-17 04:25, matthew green wrote:
>>> The (my) problem is that rwlocks must use CAS as well, and I'm starting
>>> to think that I have to use CAS for the mutex code as well, as I can't
>>> seem to get mutexs work reliably without usin
On 2010-11-17 04:25, matthew green wrote:
The (my) problem is that rwlocks must use CAS as well, and I'm starting
to think that I have to use CAS for the mutex code as well, as I can't
seem to get mutexs work reliably without using the default
implementation. The mutexes are used and abused in wa
On 2010-11-17 04:13, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
hi,
On 2010-11-16 19:32, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:44:18AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
side of the fen
> The (my) problem is that rwlocks must use CAS as well, and I'm starting
> to think that I have to use CAS for the mutex code as well, as I can't
> seem to get mutexs work reliably without using the default
> implementation. The mutexes are used and abused in ways that seems to
> make a lot o
FWIW, there *are* sparc implementations of the mutex vector
functions, but we had to disable them because of lossage we
we not able to (yet) track down. they mostly work, so may
be useful for at least reading.
.mrg.
hi,
> On 2010-11-16 19:32, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:44:18AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
side of the fence explain why the following ide
On 2010-11-16 19:32, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:44:18AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
O
On 2010-11-16 18:44, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, der Mouse wrote:
Consider this hypothetical:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:44:18AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
> > Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
> > side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, der Mouse wro
On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
> Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
> side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
>
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, der Mouse wrote:
>> Consider this hypothetical:
>>
>> x86 does #define ATOMIC_OPS
Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, der Mouse wrote:
> Consider this hypothetical:
>
> x86 does #define ATOMIC_OPS_USE_CAS and defines a CAS(); MI code
> notices this and defin
14 matches
Mail list logo