Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:55:12 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com> To: vanmaren@fast.cs.utah.edu (Kevin Van Maren) Cc: ccsanady@friley216.res.iastate.edu, smp@csn.net, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make locking more generic? Message-ID: <199612060155.JAA11590@spinner.DIALix.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
Kevin Van Maren wrote: > 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. Yes, it will most likely one of two options for each driver.. We will have to modify it to do fine grain locking (this is a major problem for the network cards due to the mbuf design), or have some way of running the driver in "backwards compatability" mode. Needless to say, we need to get more fundamental things like floating point working again first before we even consider this level of change. Cheers, -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612060155.JAA11590>