Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 16:36:52 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@HeadCandy.com> Cc: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unix/NT synchronization model (was: SMP progress?) Message-ID: <199606042336.QAA00591@Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jun 1996 16:16:46 PDT." <199606042316.QAA24168@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>For example, if I were to go find an OSF/1 (Digital Unix) system and >play around with it, would that be a good representation place to >start? Or would someone say "Oh no! Don't look at Digital Unix -- >it's SMP support really sucks!" :-) I'm just looking for peoples' >ideas and opinions here -- not an over-riding edict. Tell me what >your favorite Unix SMP system is... You may want to take a look at Mach's SMP locking and structure. It's not exactly what we'll be doing in FreeBSD, but it's not a too-bad example. Of course Mach is a microkernel design, but just overlook that while you're looking at the SMP related stuff. :-) Early SMP versions of just about every SMP Unix OS I know of started out being a single lock and became fine-grained in subsequant versions (in many cases before the code was officially released). -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606042336.QAA00591>