Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:21:47 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: fredriks@Mcs.Net, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Silo overflows with SMP kernel Message-ID: <199706261621.JAA07792@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199706260524.AAA00225@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Jun 26, 97 00:24:21 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Right now, I am working on finer grained VM locking which should be > a first step on the VFS/VM high level side to make things better. (I am > not one of the "main" SMP people, but am doing what I can do to support > them.) Is this locking for which deadlock detection should be done, or is it purely opportunistic? I ask because the locks probably need to be checked agains non-VM locks for deadly embrace deadlocks, if it's not. > By the weekend, my copy of the VM code should be SMP safe, all the > way down to the VM object/page level. There are still many many > issues to make it "correct", but it is getting closer. Essentially, > I should be able to handle a page fault (with no disk I/O) without > doing the "big lock" thing. In fact, the VM code should be able > to handle simultaneous user page faults on different processors, and > manage the locking when data structures are in common. JOHN DYSON IS A STUD! 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?199706261621.JAA07792>