Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:42:55 -0800 (PST)
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Cc:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: RE: Big Giant Lock progress?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.05.9911191141110.12797-100000@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911191107460.3072-100000@current1.whistle.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
> 
> > > :I wasn't around when this was attempted, did the code only
> > > :touch the BGL when the amount to copy was greater than let's
> > > :say 2k?  Or was the bgl toggled on every uiomove?
> > > 
> > >     BDE tried his hand at this and spent a few minutes working
> > >     up a simple patch that essentially turned off the bgl
> > >     during the uiomove and then turned it back on again.  I
> > 
> > It wasn't me.  ISTR luoqi working on this.
> > 
>
> it was john dyson
> 

I'm still wondering about my question though, was the lock selectively
removed only for large transfers?  Or for each and every transfer?

I'm just trying to laz^H^H^H^H avoid duplicate work. :)

-Alfred



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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9911191141110.12797-100000>