From owner-cvs-all Fri Jun 16 8:32: 6 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E7C37BF2B; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08973; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:31:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00677; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:31:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:31:38 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200006161531.JAA00677@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bill Fumerola Cc: Nate Williams , "Daniel O'Connor" , "Daniel C. Sobral" , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_socket.c uipc_socket2.c src/sy In-Reply-To: <20000616102115.Z8523@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <39499E16.9FE731F7@newsguy.com> <200006160506.XAA28743@nomad.yogotech.com> <20000616102115.Z8523@jade.chc-chimes.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Correct. If we want performance, how about removing the difference > > between kernel and userland. Why have the overhead of the kernel > > vs. userland change, since it causes us to take a big performance hit. > > > > As long as we're at it, we may as well embed all of the video drivers in > > the kernel, like NT did. X should become an embedded part of the > > system, since that will also speed up performance again. > > > > There are *LOTS* of performance improvments that can be done. Since > > FreeBSD is used on the internet, let's embed telnet and ftp in the > > kernel as well. We could certainly blow away all benchmarks that people > > see. > > So basically if you don't have any constructive to contribute to the > specific case at hand, you can just make broad assinine statements? No. I'm saying that blowing your architecture for performance gains isn't worth it. If performance is your entire goal (as you stated), there are lots of ways of removing that bottleneck. In short, the removal of the userland/kernel switch would make the original code's reason for existence gone, since the context switch is so painful. Or, will you agree that architecture and consistency has a role in FreeBSD, and that sometimes performance must take a back seat? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message