------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE9DF0.132C3A10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Linux Community,
I've seen discussion of shared sync objects for SMP (reader/writer =
locks) from some folks. I have not seen anything out there for them in =
the kernel sources. We really need this in Linux. In particular, they =
would make file systems ***SMOKE*** from a performance standpoint. =
Comms (neworking) subsystems usually are ok with simple mutexes and spin =
locks, but file systems and databases are different beasts. I've =
implemented them in two different SMP kernels. It sounds like several =
folks are working on implementations of them. I'd like to see them get =
rolled into the kernel -- they are desperately needed.
Standards are good. the UI (Unix International) APIs are some of the =
better for defining SMP synchronization objects (mutex_lock, =
mutex_unlock, rd_rwlock, etc.) becuase they are standardized, easy to =
implement, and well known. They also can be implemented in-kernel. If =
someone else doesn't take stab at putting them in, we may try to, if =
folks think they would be a good idea. We really need a shared sync =
object in the kernel for file system work (shared FATs, Dir Tables, =
etc.) they increase SMP parallelism and scaling if implemented correctly =
very significantly. =20
If other folks are interested in this, we could take a shot at putting =
them in, but we aren't religious about it, and would certainly welcome =
other folks to try as well -- it will help all of us.
Please advise.
Jeff
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE9DF0.132C3A10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">