From owner-freebsd-smp Wed Dec 3 09:02:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24888 for smp-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:02:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-smp) Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (Ilsa.StevesCafe.com [205.168.119.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24882 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:02:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com) Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08702 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:57:24 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712031657.JAA08702@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 From: Steve Passe To: smp@freebsd.org Subject: SMP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 09:57:24 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I've taken the month of December off, and hope to apply much of it to SMP work. I'd like to attack the following: 1: fix any true bugs that have crept in, particularily those preventing anyone from running a specific hardware setup. 2: finish my 1st stage lock-pushdown. I think I'm only a bug or 2 from getting this to run... 3: begin the design of "the real thing". My current lock-pushdown attempts to co-exist with the splxxx paradigm. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that the work I've done in this area is only useful to prove it ain't gonna' cut it. We need to design IN DETAIL a shift to a mutex based kernel. One obvious question is whether we move both UP and SMP that direction, or just SMP. There are many,many other questions to be answered. It would be nice if we could progress on this issue in a serious manner, getting a design wrapped up b4 I have to go back to my real job... -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD