DB_THREAD support in Berkeley DB/glibc
Geoff Keating
geoffk at cygnus.com
Wed Dec 29 11:54:38 EST 1999
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:15:59 -0500
> From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson.ibm.com>
You were right about sync being slower than isync. I expect
the difference is caused by sync needing to perform bus operations
where isync does not.
Anyway, they're not substitutes for each other; they do different
things, and in a given situation only one (or, possibly, both in
sequence) will be right.
> If you only are using the TSL_UNSET in the context that one
> already has the lock, then the lwarx/stwcx are unnecessary. What you have
> written, however, is not a general atomic clear macro.
How is it not atomic?
The PUM says "With the exception of double-precision floating-point
accesses on 32-bit implementations, all aligned accesses are atomic."
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at cygnus.com>
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list