Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:02:02 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sergey Babkin <babkin@verizon.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, attilio@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, prashant.vaibhav@gmail.com Subject: Re: Improving the kernel/i386 timecounter performance (GSoC proposal) Message-ID: <7319.1238194922@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:59:39 GMT." <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903272254460.12518@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903272254460.12518@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Wats on writes: >I guess interesting questions are whether (a) it would be desirable to have >per-page, per-cpu, or per-thread mappings. If there are non-synchronized >TSCs, then there might be some interesting advantages to a per-CPU page. Rule #3: The only thing worse than generalizing from one example is generalizing from no examples at all. We can add those mappings when we know why we would want them. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7319.1238194922>