From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Nov 28 15:43:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D615314A12 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:43:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA29453 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:43:34 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id AAA60256 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:43:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B4E153AC for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:42:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40344>; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:35:30 +1100 Content-return: prohibited Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:42:42 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Which is the truth? (sycalls and traps) (fwd) In-reply-to: To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Reply-To: peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Message-Id: <99Nov29.103530est.40344@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 1999-Nov-29 09:28:00 +1100, Julian Elischer wrote: >(If the UTS is running then we just block the entire process) This could easily become a bottleneck on a large SMP system. I don't believe the kernel scheduler should need to obtain an SMP lock for its entire execution. Requiring this for a UTS sounds like a performance hit. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message