Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:38:18 +0000 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Threads across processors Message-ID: <199808251338.NAA02533@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:08:50 %2B0900." <Pine.SV4.3.95.980826000204.19157C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. Yes. Anyone that thinks in terms of a context switch per transaction between coprocesses is not designing properly. Using a shared mmap() region and datastructures that don't require locking is another cost-effective technique. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com 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?199808251338.NAA02533>