Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:51:49 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: splFoo() question Message-ID: <38D80B15.C54C61F5@newsguy.com> References: <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org> <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org> <200003202057.NAA17486@harmony.village.org> <38D6C5EB.E96A6514@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Peters wrote:
>
> A per-driver mutex, perhaps? This would save us from potential
> deadly embraces within a single driver, at least.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the following yet.
splFoo() is one of FreeBSD curses. While what we have is much better
than the older splFoo() stuff, it's still pretty much the giant kernel
lock thingy. We need to get away from that of many reasons.
Well, one of the reasons is better SMP. Alas, BSD/OS allegedly have a
kick-ass SMP, which means they have replaced the splFoo() ickyness. It
would be useful to know if we'll be, indeed, using an alternative they
have developed, or if we are going to roll our own.
Now, there are TONS of research in OS concerning this. As a matter of
fact, we could even copy what _Linux_ is using to solve the problem.
This is not the place for NIH attacks.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org
dcs@zurichgnomes.bsdonspiracy.net
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone bind them.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38D80B15.C54C61F5>