On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 04:08:29PM -0400, der Mouse wrote: > > I've been working in spare moments on lockless code to prevent > > storage for a softc from going away while a driver uses it. [...] > > This looks superficially good, but isn't the cost of the necessary > memory barries and cache flushes comparable with the cost of a more > traditional scheme?
On the fast path, a processor does not modify any shared cachelines, so we avoid many of the memory barriers and cache flushes of a traditional scheme, unless there's something I've missed. Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dyo...@ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
