Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:52:42 -0700
From:      Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
To:        Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>
Cc:        jhb@FreeBSD.org, smp@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Netgraph and SMP 
Message-ID:  <200012051652.eB5Gqgm02018@berserker.bsdi.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:48:40 CST." <200012042348.eB4NmeA73673@prism.flugsvamp.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
	The vast majority of the cost of the lock manager
locks is the mutex release and acquire. On Intel at least it is possible
to have reader/write locks that are half as expensive in the
non-contested cased. HOWEVER, we don't have these primitive
now and reader writer locks with the lock manager are as
cheap as we have got.

	We probably out to wrap the acquire and release in
macros so we can swap them out later. Right now we just really
need to get the functionality.

	I would also like to point out that the cost of all
the atomic operations being put in the path collectively make
the lock manager lock just not that big of a deal. This is
not something I like, but just something to put things
in perspective.


Chuck


}
}Let's get realistic here.  We're not going to get a shared lockmgr
}lock for every stinking packet that comes into the network.  While
}SIX locks (or semaphore, or shared reader/writer) is nice in theory,
}I think the performance impact is too much for this particular case.
}--
}Jonathan
}
}
}To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
}with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message



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?200012051652.eB5Gqgm02018>