Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:41:00 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com>, Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net>, "'current@freebsd.org'" <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104171840140.14442-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <200104172107.f3HL7ei07632@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > :You need to settle dude, pre-emption isn't a goal, it's mearly a > :_possible_ side effect. > : > :We're not aiming for pre-emption, we're aiming for more concurrancy. > > A goal of having more concurrency is laudable, but I think you are > ignoring the costs of doing task switches verses the likely spin time > for a mutex. The whole point of using fine-grained Mutexes is to not > have significant performance-effecting collisions in the first place, > so why bother to try to task switch if you wind up spining in one? Exactly. It makes absolutely no sense to optimise mutexes for the case of having contention. If you have contention, you need to fix the contention, not introduce all kinds of singing-dancing cool things you can do when contention happens. Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0104171840140.14442-100000>