From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Dec 16 02:32:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id CAA17111 for smp-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rodan.UU.NET (84@rodan.UU.NET [153.39.130.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id CAA17090 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by rodan.UU.NET id QQbuic14582; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:32:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:32:23 -0500 (EST) From: mo@UU.NET (Mike O'Dell) Message-Id: To: smp@freebsd.org Subject: smp technology..... Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk just to toss in my 2 cents.... i assume folks have read the smp paper that appeared in Computing Systems several years ago by the folks at Amdahl?? they did an smp implementation where most of the work was done by transforming the SPLn() calls (essentially with a SED script) and then getting the interrupt stuff right. they compared their experimental implementation with a fine-grain-locking implementation and discovered that the experimental system had better large-scale multiprogramming throughput because it did did significantly less convoying. (convoying is a phenomenon where processes line up and progress through a series of locks single-file like a convoy. i always thought a conga-line was a better visual image, but "convoying" is the term in the literature.) probably worth looking up the Computing Systems paper if you haven't seen it. cheers, -mo