Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:42:42 +1100
From:      Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
To:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Which is the truth? (sycalls and traps)  (fwd)
Message-ID:  <99Nov29.103530est.40344@border.alcanet.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911281412510.544-100000@current1.whistle.com>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911281412510.544-100000@current1.whistle.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99Nov29.103530est.40344>