From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 24 14:20:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from janus.syracuse.net (janus.syracuse.net [205.232.47.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43209152A6 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from green@unixhelp.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by janus.syracuse.net (8.9.2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA13148; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:20:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian F. Feldman" X-Sender: green@janus.syracuse.net To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Karl Denninger , Doug , Mark Newton , drosih@rpi.edu, grog@lemis.com, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft performance (was: ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Karl Denninger wrote: > > A simple start would be to explicitly put a macro or call in each > syscall to push down the lock. That way people can move that > macro farther and farther down in the syscall code path, hopefully > removing it entirely in some cases. I think having the call at > the beginning of each syscall would motivate people into doing that > sort of work. > > "Hey, y'know getppid() is safe, i'll just take the lock out." > "this function xxx() is safe until this point I can process a lot > before actually needing this lock..." > "y'know I just have a structure that's not accessable to any other calls > that i'm going to fill in, i'll just lift the lock right here" > "if I just do this something here, I really am re-entrant and safe.." > > Providing a simple api for spinlocks and mutexes would be very nice. > Something along the lines of how spl()s work? And mutex allocation like what we do with malloc types, maybe? > If some of the FreeBSD gods (core) said something along the lines > of we'd like to see the process table have XXX method of access > and locking people will code it, the same way with the many other > subsystems. > > Things like pmap and UFS and INET will be a royal pain to get > SMP safe, however baby steps towards lifting the lock for > simpler subsystems will lead the way. FreeBSD has the > most intellegent people in the industry working together, > all that is needed is a starting point. > > -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@rush.net|bright@wintelcom.net] > systems administrator and programmer > Win Telecom - http://www.wintelcom.net/ > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message