From owner-freebsd-smp Sun Jun 27 16: 8:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C7B151DA for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 16:08:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id TAA21317; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:07:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199906272307.TAA21317@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: high-efficiency SMP locks - submission for review Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > This brings up a couple of points.. > > 2/ Before we rush off and implement a new set of locking primatives, > it might be a good idea to look at the locking primatives of a few > other OS's.. For example Linux and MACH, and if we can get hold of > them, Solaris and maybe the exokernel. (and sprite) The Vahalia book (UNIX Internals - The New Frontiers) has a pretty good synopsis of locking systems used by various OSs (see chapter 7). At least from the programmers interface, I really like the Solaris API (kernel mutexes and condition variables) - they are well understood and easy to use. It would be nice to get rid of the spl's and replace them with spl aware kernel mutexes/condtion variables. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message