From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:54:38 -0800 From: Geoff Keating Message-Id: <199912290054.QAA13250@localhost.cygnus.com> To: dje@watson.ibm.com CC: eek@escape.ca, drow@false.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com In-reply-to: <199912290015.TAA24316@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> (message from David Edelsohn on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:15:59 -0500) Subject: Re: DB_THREAD support in Berkeley DB/glibc References: <199912290015.TAA24316@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:15:59 -0500 > From: David Edelsohn 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 ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/