Subject: Re: PostgreSQL
To: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/02/2006 13:02:37
Um? Not entirely true.
You don't need locked bus cycles for atomic operations which actually
are atomic on the bus.
A write is a write is a write. It can never be split. It's atomic. Can't
be anything else.
However, a read-modify-write operation needs to be interlocked if it is
to appear to be atomic.
Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:58:04PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>Also, I'm pretty sure that synchronization between threads doesn't
>>require locked bus cycles, only atomic ops, again another saving.
> If this was the case, I'd be very interested in your definition of
> "locked bus cycle" vs. "atomic ops".
> In a multi-CPU (with non-shared cache) system, you have to implement
> atomic operations via some sort of locked bus cycles.
> This is independent of the thread vs. processes-with-a-shared-variable
> P.S.: Why, exactly, is this discussion on tech-net, among others?
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: email@example.com || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol