Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:48:30 -0700 From: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> To: vanmaren@fast.cs.utah.edu (Kevin Van Maren) Cc: ccsanady@friley216.res.iastate.edu, peter@spinner.dialix.com, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make locking more generic? Message-ID: <199612051748.KAA13670@clem.systemsix.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:45:07 MST." <199612051745.KAA18517@fast.cs.utah.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, the reason you need finer grained locking is because the > interrupts *should* go to the other processor. If one > processor is handling an interrupt and annother int comes > in, the other CPU should be able to handle it. This > would finally give parallel I/O! Linux doesn't do this, > and they do very poorly when not every process is CPU bound. > > Kevin > > ps: This will most likely mean fixing device drivers as well. what is your thinking here, ie what way are they likely to break? -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | FreeBSD -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzHe7tEAAAEEAM274wAEEdP+grIrV6UtBt54FB5ufifFRA5ujzflrvlF8aoE 04it5BsUPFi3jJLfvOQeydbegexspPXL6kUejYt2OeptHuroIVW5+y2M2naTwqtX WVGeBP6s2q/fPPAS+g+sNZCpVBTbuinKa/C4Q6HJ++M9AyzIq5EuvO0a8Rr9AAUR tBlTdGV2ZSBQYXNzZSA8c21wQGNzbi5uZXQ+ =ds99 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612051748.KAA13670>