From owner-freebsd-smp Wed Jun 5 11:37:09 1996 Return-Path: owner-smp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA22798 for smp-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter2.tfs.com ([140.145.16.108]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA22793; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter2.tfs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter2.tfs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA01041; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:36:33 -0700 (PDT) To: Terry Lambert cc: sef@kithrup.com, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unix/NT synchronization model (was: SMP progress?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Jun 1996 11:24:53 PDT." <199606051824.LAA29307@phaeton.artisoft.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 11:36:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1039.833999791@critter2.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199606051824.LAA29307@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: >> >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). But I still havn't been able to compile them, and I stil havn't been able to get them without the "attached strings" of other potentially unwanted patches. :-) >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). my words exactly. Except >I< think that >you< should do the work of keep the issues separate rather than me trying to separate them. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.