Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 02 May 1997 15:11:27 +0300
From:      Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua>
To:        Chris Csanady <ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net>
Cc:        Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, FreeBSD-SMP@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: SMP
Message-ID:  <3369DA00.5A6B@cki.ipri.kiev.ua>
References:  <199704280416.XAA12986@nyx.pr.mcs.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris Csanady wrote:
> 
> >i sit corrected.  i expect they will eventually migrate to a fully
> >threaded kernel.
> 
> As will we I hope.  I was hoping to work on pushing the locks down
> into the syscalls earlier, but I ran into some trouble.  I really
> knew very little about assembly, and our locks really are not up
> to it yet. :(
> 
> Besides, the general concencus was that we didn't want to deal with
> it now..
> 
> --Chris Csanady
> 
> >On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Chris Csanady wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >freebsd-smp is not the best example of how to do SMP.  it uses the
> >> >simplest method: one giant kernel lock.  i don't know that it is
> >> >particularly representative of advanced SMP operating systems (though
> >> >linux also uses a giant kernel lock).
> >>
> >> Actually, linux has moved to a slightly finer grain system.  Now they
> >> have seperate locks for the run queues, scheduler, and some other
> >> things..
> >>
> >> --Chris Csanady
> >>

In principle, the *correct* way: split kernel on subsystems,
write IDL interfases  (of course, on paper, not in srsc)
, and analize.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3369DA00.5A6B>