> Suppose I have a variable (a global int) that I'm going to read
> alot but set
> infrequently. By my understanding, on x86SMP, it uses a
> Exclusive/Shared/Invalid
> Bus protocol that when one processor changes a cache entry, all the other
> processors are sent invalidates for that cache line. So is it wrong to
> assume that if the only operations are the above, read frequent, and write
> rarely, I don't need locking?
>
> What about other platforms? If it is needed for say platform 'x'
> but the lock
> isn't needed for platform x86, how is that handled? No reason to
> go through
> a lock. If I am a running process, and I am looking at say, my
> audit mask,
> do I need to lock it? Am I correct in assuming that the worst that could
> happen would be I catch it while someone else is writing it for 1 call
> and get only a partially written mask back? I know the writer has to at
> least lock some part of the process so the process won't "go
> away" in the middle
> of the writer fiddling with it, but other than that, do I need any special
> locking on the mask itself?
Been there, done that. Got burned so many times on so many different
platforms that I finally decided that if the overhead of the lock was
significant, the design was broken.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST