* Ignatios Souvatzis <is@netbsd.org> [060202 03:38] 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".

My mistake, I somehow was thinking of a userspace threading
system, where there is one kernel context for many threads.

> In a multi-CPU (with non-shared cache) system, you have to implement
> atomic operations via some sort of locked bus cycles.

Yes.

> This is independent of the thread vs. processes-with-a-shared-variable
> question.
> 

> P.S.: Why, exactly, is this discussion on tech-net, among others?

Initial posted decided to cross post as much as possible? :D

(trimmed to tech-mist@)

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein