From owner-freebsd-smp Thu Dec 5 18:30:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA20339 for smp-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:30:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from friley216.res.iastate.edu (friley216.res.iastate.edu [129.186.78.216]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA20334 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from friley216.res.iastate.edu (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by friley216.res.iastate.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA00386 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:30:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612060230.UAA00386@friley216.res.iastate.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make locking more generic? In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:55:12 +0800. <199612060155.JAA11590@spinner.DIALix.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 20:30:20 -0600 From: Chris Csanady Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >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