Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:35:46 -0500 From: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> To: "Robert S. Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> Cc: Cosmic 665 <the_hermit665@hotmail.com>, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP comparisons Message-ID: <19990708123546.H10611@cs.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.96.990708123245.26753A-100000@fatlady.controlq.com>; from Robert S. Sciuk on Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0400 References: <19990708162724.16604.qmail@hotmail.com> <Pine.UW2.3.96.990708123245.26753A-100000@fatlady.controlq.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0400, Robert S. Sciuk wrote: > I think we're not where we should be ... what with the GreatBigLock in the > Kernel ... however, I've seen some -smp traffic which leads me to believe > some very talented individuals are working to rectify this situation ... > then FreeBSD should kick some proverbial butt 8-). > Here's what you'll see shortly: 1. Bruce Evans is about to commit some changes to the interrupt management code that removes one impediment to moving (or removing) the giant lock. 2. Luoqi Chen is working on the next step. He's moving some of the interrupt management variables from shared memory to per processor memory. Once these pieces are in place, the *body* of many simple system calls can be executed without the giant lock. Returning from the system call to user level will still, however, require the giant lock. Tackling that problem and making some further changes to the interrupt management code will probably be the next steps, but in the meantime people will be able to experiment with multithreading various system calls. Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990708123546.H10611>