[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Unidentified subject!

LOCK# is also used to cover a potential deadlock scenario for PCI to
PCI bridges. See page 115 of the 2.1 spec for some discussion of the


> From: Mark Gonzales <markg@scic.intel.com>
> d_schneider@emulex.com writes
> >> From: "Monish Shah" <monish@mcsy2.fc.hp.com>
> >> Message-Id: <9608270951.ZM7619@hpfcmss.fc.hp.com>
> >> use of LOCK# should be avoided if at all possible.
> >
> >This could be a problem for us software types.  The LOCK# signal is 
> >typically used for our mutual exclusion schemes (dining philosophers and all 
> >that).  If we can't guarantee LOCK#, especially in a multi-master 
> >environment, what is the recommended way of doing mutual exclusion?
> Just use locations in main memory for your CPUs' semaphores.  You will
> get excruciatingly bad performance if you attempt to synchronize many
> CPUs by using locked CPU accesses to a semaphore in memory that resides
> on the PCI bus.
> Do you really have a product that has *PCI* masters that are
> synchronizing amongst themselves using locked accesses to a semaphore?!?
> --
> Mark Gonzales.

Frank Story                    frank.story@tempe.vlsi.com
VLSI Technology                602-752-6098
Computing Products Group