Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:19:57 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com>, Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net>, "'current@freebsd.org'" <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Message-ID: <20010417011957.W976@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200104160616.f3G6GI973782@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:16:18PM -0700 References: <200104160259.f3G2xqs06321@aslan.scsiguy.com> <200104160616.f3G6GI973782@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> [010415 23:16] wrote: > > For example, all this work on a preemptive > kernel is just insane. Our entire kernel is built on the concept of > not being preemptable except by interrupts. We virtually guarentee > years of instability and bugs leaking out of the woodwork by trying to > make it preemptable, and the performance gain we get for that pain > is going to be zilch. Nada. Nothing. Pre-emption is mearly a side effect of a mutex'd kernel. The actual gains are in terms of parallel execution internally. Meaning if we happen to copyin() a 4 meg buffer we can allow more than one process to be completing some sort of work inside the kernel other than spinning on the giant lock. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010417011957.W976>