Are atomic_* implementations allowed to spin/sleep?
The question is because some platforms don't have atomic operations
for adding and so on (e.g. sparcv8).
The only way to implement them on these platforms is to use a lock.
Now I'm wonder if the use of a sleep mutex is allowed or is a simple
On 2001-Feb-08 18:21:07 +0100, Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are atomic_* implementations allowed to spin/sleep?
The atomic_* operations are the primitives used to build all the
higher level locking functions. Therefore you are not allowed to
sleep.
As for spinning: You can't implement
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 07:57:50AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2001-Feb-08 18:21:07 +0100, Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are atomic_* implementations allowed to spin/sleep?
The atomic_* operations are the primitives used to build all the
higher level locking functions. Therefore
On 08-Feb-01 Bernd Walter wrote:
Do we grant usuage of the atomic functions in interrupt code?
If yes there is a need to disable interrupts!
I'm not talking about interrupt threads.
Yes, we use spin mutexes to schedule ithreads, and we use other atomic
operations in IPI handlers.
--
John
On 2001-Feb-08 22:21:32 +0100, Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On sparcv8 you don't have an operation doing conditionaly stores and
you don't have RMW operations.
The only way to do is to have a global lock variable on which you spin
until the current client finishes.
The SPARC
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:00:04AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2001-Feb-08 22:21:32 +0100, Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On sparcv8 you don't have an operation doing conditionaly stores and
you don't have RMW operations.
The only way to do is to have a global lock variable on which
* Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010208 09:21] wrote:
Are atomic_* implementations allowed to spin/sleep?
The question is because some platforms don't have atomic operations
for adding and so on (e.g. sparcv8).
Actually, you can use atomic_* on sparc, but you're limited to
24 bits.
The
