Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:01:06 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MP: per-CPU mbuf allocation lists Message-ID: <20001031200106.L48771@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <200010312225.PAA04504@berserker.bsdi.com>; from cp@bsdi.com on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:25:33PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010311724060.36823-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> <200010312225.PAA04504@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:25:33PM -0700, Chuck Paterson wrote: > I would really really like to encourage anyone who wants > to do this type of work to please first help get more stuff out > from under Giant so we can start getting this thing to be act > more like a SMP system and less like a MP system that can't take > interrupts in the kernel. I strongly agree with Chuck here. We have a lot of ground work to do before such optimizations are of any importance. This discussion is similar in nature to the long discussion of mutexes (recursive/non-recursive, APIs, yadda yadda) -- both are irrelevant to the current state of FreeBSD. What we really need right now is help in moving -current forward to the point that such discussions are relevant. This is just soaking up people's time and making the real work go slower. If you really want to make a difference, please consider how you can help solve the issues we need to address *right now*. Jason SMP project manager To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001031200106.L48771>