| From: | Eirik Nygaard <eirikn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:36:21 +0200 |
On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 11:17:45PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Another solution is to make the code in question lockless.. with no > locking requirements at all. This is accomplished by guarenteeing that > all potential conflicts occur on the same cpu. > > For example, Jeff's work on the TCP stack is moving all protocol processing > for a particulr PCB to a particular cpu. Since only one cpu is working > on a particular PCB, the protocol code can access that PCB without > acquiring any locks, mutexes, or tokens of any sort. > What I don't understand is how you it can be garanteed that the PCB will stay consistant under the entire execution of the thread that accesses it, wouldn't it be possible for another thread to do some magic on it while the other thread is blocking or doing some other magic? I have not yet read the code in question, but if you have some pointers on where to start reading it I might get a better grasp of what happens and why. -- Eirik Nygaard eirikn@xxxxxxxxxxxx Never let a computer know you're in a hurry.
Attachment:
pgp00006.pgp
Description: PGP signature