Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:37:15 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> Cc: "Robert S. Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com>, Cosmic 665 <the_hermit665@hotmail.com>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP comparisons Message-ID: <199907081837.MAA01531@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19990708123546.H10611@cs.rice.edu> References: <19990708162724.16604.qmail@hotmail.com> <Pine.UW2.3.96.990708123245.26753A-100000@fatlady.controlq.com> <19990708123546.H10611@cs.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I think we're not where we should be ... what with the GreatBigLock in the > > Kernel ... however, I've seen some -smp traffic which leads me to believe > > some very talented individuals are working to rectify this situation ... > > then FreeBSD should kick some proverbial butt 8-). > > > > Here's what you'll see shortly: > > 1. Bruce Evans is about to commit some changes to the interrupt management > code that removes one impediment to moving (or removing) the giant lock. > > 2. Luoqi Chen is working on the next step. He's moving some > of the interrupt management variables from shared memory to > per processor memory. > > Once these pieces are in place, the *body* of many simple system calls can > be executed without the giant lock. Returning from the system call > to user level will still, however, require the giant lock. Tackling > that problem and making some further changes to the interrupt management > code will probably be the next steps, but in the meantime people will be > able to experiment with multithreading various system calls. Whoo hoo..... Go guys go!!! Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907081837.MAA01531>