From owner-freebsd-smp Tue Jun 22 11:21: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rpi.edu (mumble.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.8.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9C714D4D for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crossd@cs.rpi.edu) Received: from cs.rpi.edu (phoenix.cs.rpi.edu [128.113.96.153]) by cs.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16702 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906221820.OAA16702@cs.rpi.edu> To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call to arms..-SMP Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:20:56 -0400 From: "David E. Cross" Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org It was mentioned awhile ago on -hackers or -current (I forget which), that until now FreeBSD's SMP had been evolutionary, what we need is revolutionary. It went on to describe a method that uses mutex-es and message passing within the kernel. How hard would that be to impliment? I don't forsee the recent discussion about per IRQ threads as being the answer to the question. FreeBSD has always been a bit behind because we try to do things right. I would really like to see something as advanced as a threaded kernel with mutex-es and the like, and I think that would clearly give us the very best performance. What is the status of any mods to the SMP foundation to accomidate either setup? -- David Cross | email: crossd@cs.rpi.edu Systems Administrator/Research Programmer | Web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~crossd Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860 Department of Computer Science | Fax: 518.276.4033 I speak only for myself. | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message