Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:11:49 +1000 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary Message-ID: <20000628151149.B2209@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000625091445.2784A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200006251736.KAA09884@usr02.primenet.com> <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 25 June 2000 at 22:42:02 -0600, Nate Williams wrote: >> Dynix had no problem with 32 processors. Most SVR4 variants, and >> I will include Solaris in this, use mutex protection of structures, >> and start to fall down drastically over 4 processors. > > Amazing that you say this, yet I see extremely good results on > Solaris boxes up to 64 processors. Yes, I was wondering about this statement too. As usual, it probably depends on what you're doing. Terry seems to know Dynix pretty well, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that this statement originated there. > Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced, nor am I convinced that > mutex's around data structures is any different than critical > sectioning. I'm convinced that they're different. The real issue is which is better, and I tend towards locking data structures. But Terry, go ahead and prove us wrong if you want. I won't mind. > They are essentially the same thing, in that the critical section is > almost always the code that deals with a particular (shared) data > structure. That's a degenerate case, of course. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000628151149.B2209>