Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:33:00 -0700 From: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org> To: Arun Sharma <adsharma@home.com> Cc: "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: High syscall overhead? Message-ID: <199906120833.BAA40681@sigma.veritas.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "11 Jun 1999 23:15:15 PDT." <m34skeeyh8.fsf@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11 Jun 1999 23:15:15 PDT, Arun Sharma writes: >Can someone explain to me why is SYSCALL_LOCK necessary ? It certainly >seems to hurt system call performance on a MP machine. > >Also, is there any data on lock contention in FreeBSD ? Is anyone >working on decomposing some of the giant locks ? I have a follow-on question: is there any planned work to give FreeBSD some of the basic synch primitives? I would love to help finer-grain the kernel, (having just today built my first SMP FreeBSD system), but first I think I'd need to implement mutexes and condition variables. It looks like there may be spin/sleeplocks and rwlocks, but they're not called that. Is there any work being done in this area? I think implementing the SVR4 synch primitives (mutex, condvars, maybe semas, rwlocks) would be great, since that's what's taught, and they're intuitive. I'm still trying to figure out the deal with "lockmgr". -- Aaron Smith VERITAS Software File System Engineer "I'll call him mini me". To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906120833.BAA40681>