Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:46:14 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Message-ID: <20010420104614.C72002@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010419101051.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 10:10:51AM -0700 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com> <XFMail.010419101051.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 19 April 2001 at 10:10:51 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 19-Apr-01 Dennis wrote: >> I understand there is a language thing, but I went out of my way to say >> that i wasnt saying that SMP shouldnt be supported. It already is, and its >> been done very cleanly in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of the >> OS internals. > > Actually, it's done in about the most inefficient manner possible, to be > brutally honest. The first stage of the SMP support focused more on getting > the machine to run than on getting it to perform well. You really should go do > some actual research on SMP before spouting off. I highly recommend Curt > Schimmel's _Unix Systems for Modern Architectures_: Caching and SMP for Kernel > Programmers. If you read it, you will find that our current implementation is > actually worse than a master/slave kernel setup, which is the slowest one > mentioned in the book. :( Well, no, it does mention our approach as being the slowest, even slower than master-slave :-) Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010420104614.C72002>