Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:09:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jasone@canonware.com (Jason Evans) Cc: seth@pengar.com (Seth Leigh), tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: possible problem with SMP? Message-ID: <200102160009.RAA10700@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20010215013147.N56728@canonware.com> from "Jason Evans" at Feb 15, 2001 01:31:47 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Terry, have you looked into the Solaris Doors mechanism, and do you think > > that implementing a facility like that in FreeBSD would clean up and > > improve the way FreeBSD plans to implement the threads library upcalls, and > > other possible places for upcalls as well? Despite my as-yet limited > > understanding, it sounds promising to me. > > I have looked at the Solaris doors mechanism, and am of the opinion that it > is significantly more heavy-weight than what we need for KSEs. > Implementing doors is a large task by itself. See my other posting; it may be worth the decrease in complexity in the perverse corner cases. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you, though, since it would mean more domain crossings than are absolutely necessary (so does the activation approach, but at least it can be justified in terms of maintaining backwards binary compataibility, and it's less than a Doors approach, if completion is handled correctly, which the documents indicate is the plan). From a generic perspective, maybe we already have a competing technology for Doors in the kqueue code (ignoring threads using the code as an implementation detail). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200102160009.RAA10700>