Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:24:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: phk@freebsd.org (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: terry@lambert.org, sef@kithrup.com, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unix/NT synchronization model (was: SMP progress?) Message-ID: <199606051824.LAA29307@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <2215.833931943@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Jun 4, 96 04:45:43 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Actually, I disagree with this. I think that the higher grain the > >parallelism, the better the ... > > Terry, feel free. We will consider you patches when we see them. After Jeffrey Hsu has worked around the problem with the Lite2 code integration (I am not convinced that it isn't a side effect of the recent VM changes, which have shown up a lot of broken assumptions in the CSRG code), and the Lite2 code is brought into the -current tree, I will work on Lite2-ing my FS patches. If you will remember, my FS patches addressed issues of fine grain parallelism, starting in June of 1995 (ie: it has been more than a year since you first saw the patches you are requesting). In point of fact, I have already prepared all of vfs_syscalls.c for the lock pushdown from the trap code, as described in my previous post, by making them single-entry/single-exit. I really don't see why the patches need to be all-or-nothing for you to even consider them in the first place... all that requirement does is make eventual integration more difficult (and thus unlikely). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606051824.LAA29307>