Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 20:30:20 -0600 From: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@friley216.res.iastate.edu> To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make locking more generic? Message-ID: <199612060230.UAA00386@friley216.res.iastate.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:55:12 %2B0800. <199612060155.JAA11590@spinner.DIALix.COM>
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 s/design/stupidity/ Chris >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?199612060230.UAA00386>