* Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010417 17:02] wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 April 2001 at 1:19:57 -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010415 23:16] wrote:
> >>
> >> For example, all this work on a preemptive
> >> kernel is just insane. Our entire kernel is built on the concept of
> >> not being preemptable except by interrupts. We virtually guarentee
> >> years of instability and bugs leaking out of the woodwork by trying to
> >> make it preemptable, and the performance gain we get for that pain
> >> is going to be zilch. Nada. Nothing.
> >
> > Pre-emption is mearly a side effect of a mutex'd kernel.
> >
> > The actual gains are in terms of parallel execution internally.
> > Meaning if we happen to copyin() a 4 meg buffer we can allow more
> > than one process to be completing some sort of work inside the
> > kernel other than spinning on the giant lock.
>
> *sigh* Couldn't you have changed the subject line when discussing
> something of this importance?
I wasn't discussing, I was explaining.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
