Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:55:34 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@mail.cicely.de> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Idea Receiver <receiver@blueskybbs.yi.org>, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>, Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: libc_r locking... why? Message-ID: <20010714125534.B22609@cicely20.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <3B419910.BF346FB4@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:06:08AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106301129090.8701-100000@RedDust.BlueSky.net.au> <3B419910.BF346FB4@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:06:08AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Sequent had a BSD-based OS called Dynix, which had a lot > of smart things in it, including per processor resource > pools, which is what enabled it to scale so large: it > removed everything it could from the inter-CPU contention > domain. FreeBSD is trying to take much of that approach. > Unfortunately, they went to System V (SVR3), which then > introduced a big giant lock on SMP-unsafe subsystems; in > particular, only one processor was allowed into the VFS > at a time, which sucked -- if you started two "ls -R" > processes on two processors, then one would complete, > and then the other -- but the second one wouldn't start > until the lock was let go, so they were effectively being > serialized, while one CPU was idle. It really ruined the > usefulness of the machine. I own a Mai BasicFour GPx5070 machine with 2 CPUs. The OS is named BOSS which seems to be a Sequent SysV. I can agree with the ls -R situation. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de 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?20010714125534.B22609>