Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 05 Apr 1997 12:13:41 -0500
From:      "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com>
Cc:        cr@jcmax.com (Cyrus Rahman), smp@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Questions about mp_lock 
Message-ID:  <12968.860260421@orion.webspan.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:04:44 %2B0800." <199704051704.BAA18422@spinner.DIALix.COM> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote in message ID
<199704051704.BAA18422@spinner.DIALix.COM>:
> Moving the kernel locking up a layer and having a seperate entry/exit lock
> in the trap/syscall/interupt area would be a major win without too much
> cost.  What we'd gain by that would be that we could then gradually move 
> to a per-subsystem locking system perhaps based initially on which syscall 
> or trap type.  It'd be quite possible to have one cpu in the kernel doing 
> IP checksumming on a packet, another in the vfs system somewhere, another 
> doing some copy-on-write page copies in the vm system and so on.  Things 
> like getpid() would need no locking whatsoever.  But that's for later once 
> the basics are working.

Question if you would: define`basics'?

Thanks,

Gary
--
Gary Palmer                                          FreeBSD Core Team Member
FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12968.860260421>