From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Jun 26 12:57: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA1A37B691 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrs@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (jrs@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA11900; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:56:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jrs@enteract.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:56:30 -0500 (CDT) From: John Sconiers To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Luoqi Chen , jasone@canonware.com, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary In-Reply-To: <200006261949.MAA29502@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Quick question. I've been reading this as well as past threads and understand the merit and functionality of the new SMP model. However, how much (if any) will Performance on both single and multi cpu machines improve after this change?? Will the new systme use up more resources(ie memory, swap, cpu) in single and multi CPU configurations?? I apologize if this has already been brought up. JRS > : I've found the a sorted queue is best for this sort of thing. It > : is possible to do a low-overhead sorted queue by having the insertion > : code scan from the beginning forward AND the end backwards until it > : finds the insertion point. Usually it finds the insertion point in only > : one or two iterations. > : The wakeup code then simply pops the first proc from the queue and wakes > : it up. > Scrap my last comment, I must be high. > Jason's explanation is the right one (priority lending). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message