From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 25 08:11:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10669 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA10505; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:10:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.8/CET-v2.2) with SMTP id PAA19521; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:08:50 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:08:50 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Gary Palmer cc: Chuck Robey , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Threads across processors In-Reply-To: <3686.904031598@gjp.erols.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Gary Palmer wrote: > Heck, SMI wrote `doors' for the very reason that IPC *blows* in all cases, and > that to pull off the speedups with NSCD that they wanted, they had to get the > IPC overhead reduced a lot. I think I even have slides somewhere comparing > pipes, SYSV SHM, etc times for message passing in terms of transit time. Our pipes are very fast. SYSV SHM's blunder is that it uses full blown system calls for synchronization. > So, I think you are missing a lot of real-time applications too. Yes, the realtime guys will always be biased toward 1-to-1 over anything else not because of performance but because of more predictable scheduling. Regards, Mike Hancock To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message