Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 23:16:05 -0500 From: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net> To: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, FreeBSD-SMP@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SMP Message-ID: <199704280416.XAA12986@nyx.pr.mcs.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 27 Apr 1997 23:58:02 -0400. <Pine.LNX.3.91.970427235743.32065P-100000@zen.cypher.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>i sit corrected. i expect they will eventually migrate to a fully >threaded kernel. As will we I hope. I was hoping to work on pushing the locks down into the syscalls earlier, but I ran into some trouble. I really knew very little about assembly, and our locks really are not up to it yet. :( Besides, the general concencus was that we didn't want to deal with it now.. --Chris Csanady >On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Chris Csanady wrote: > >> >> >freebsd-smp is not the best example of how to do SMP. it uses the >> >simplest method: one giant kernel lock. i don't know that it is >> >particularly representative of advanced SMP operating systems (though >> >linux also uses a giant kernel lock). >> >> Actually, linux has moved to a slightly finer grain system. Now they >> have seperate locks for the run queues, scheduler, and some other >> things.. >> >> --Chris Csanady >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704280416.XAA12986>