Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 15:11:27 +0300 From: Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua> To: Chris Csanady <ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net> Cc: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, FreeBSD-SMP@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SMP Message-ID: <3369DA00.5A6B@cki.ipri.kiev.ua> References: <199704280416.XAA12986@nyx.pr.mcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris Csanady wrote: > > >i sit corrected. i expect they will eventually migrate to a fully > >threaded kernel. > > As will we I hope. I was hoping to work on pushing the locks down > into the syscalls earlier, but I ran into some trouble. I really > knew very little about assembly, and our locks really are not up > to it yet. :( > > Besides, the general concencus was that we didn't want to deal with > it now.. > > --Chris Csanady > > >On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Chris Csanady wrote: > > > >> > >> >freebsd-smp is not the best example of how to do SMP. it uses the > >> >simplest method: one giant kernel lock. i don't know that it is > >> >particularly representative of advanced SMP operating systems (though > >> >linux also uses a giant kernel lock). > >> > >> Actually, linux has moved to a slightly finer grain system. Now they > >> have seperate locks for the run queues, scheduler, and some other > >> things.. > >> > >> --Chris Csanady > >> In principle, the *correct* way: split kernel on subsystems, write IDL interfases (of course, on paper, not in srsc) , and analize.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3369DA00.5A6B>