From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Dec 16 03:49:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id DAA20811 for smp-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 03:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hda.hda.com (ip53-max1-fitch.ziplink.net [199.232.245.53]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id DAA20806 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 03:49:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19402; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 06:46:20 -0500 From: Peter Dufault Message-Id: <199612161146.GAA19402@hda.hda.com> Subject: Re: General SMP Design In-Reply-To: from Chuck Robey at "Dec 15, 96 10:44:09 pm" To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 06:46:20 -0500 (EST) Cc: michaelh@cet.co.jp, smp@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I thought the URL you posted above was the thesis (which I'd already > downloaded and read) but what you gave is an expanded form of it, so I > have to study it and see if maybe the TSM concept is explained more fully. > Thanks. A question for those who know the Intel SMP system: I was looking at the work at UNC that Bakul pointed out. Some of the work assumes that a lower priority process will never complete before a higher priority process leading to uniprocessor restrictions. Is there an efficient way to have a priority on the processor pool to permit only a single process at priority N (and as many that want to at a higher priority) to run? This would not be going on in general, but only during the DWCAS/READ operations. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Real-Time Machine Control and Simulation HD Associates, Inc. Voice: 508 433 6936