From owner-freebsd-smp Sun Jun 25 21:42:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A16A37BA78 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:42:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04205; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:42:09 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA15731; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:42:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:42:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Terry Lambert Cc: eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel Eischen), jasone@canonware.com (Jason Evans), smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary In-Reply-To: <200006251736.KAA09884@usr02.primenet.com> References: <200006251736.KAA09884@usr02.primenet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > 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. 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. They are essentially the same thing, in that the critical section is almost always the code that deals with a particular (shared) data structure. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message