From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:07:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200002130207.SAA31705@work.bitmover.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:42:53 PST." <200002130042.QAA22405@clock.engr.sgi.com>
: > OK, so tell me: how many locks does it take to scale up the following to
: > 16 CPUs:
: > local disks
: > local file system
: > remote file system
: > processes
: > networking interfaces and stack
: >
: > What do the locks cover? At 16 CPUs, can you keep all the locks straight
: > in your head? Nope. So what happens when you go into the kernel and add
: > a feature? You add a lock. What does that do? Increases the number of
: > locks. What effect does that have? Makes it more likely that you'll add
: > more locks, because now it is even less obvious what the lock protects.
:
: Good design can avoid these problems. If it isn't obvious what a lock
: protects, you should rethink your locking structure.
I notice that you didn't actually answer any of the questions above, just
a nice hand wave that says "it need not be so". Well, just to indulge
me, could you please either:
a) answer the questions above, or
b) show a shipping, production system which demonstrates your claims, or
c) admit that you don't know the answer.
: I wasn't arguing that 16 way SMP is OK. Everyone knows it isn't.
Geez, and this from the guy who said Linux needs to support "16-64 way SMP".
: Are you saying that clusters of small SMP machines are better?
read these:
http://www.bitmover.com/llnl/smp.pdf
http://www.bitmover.com/llnl/labs.pdf
: So the locking
: moves from the kernels to the application layer. You still have the same
: synchronization concerns, it's just a matter of what layer they are
: implemented at.
Err, if you had actually done this, you'd find that your statements
are unsupportable in practice. Please show me an application that has
anything, even with an order of magnitude, like the number of locks
taken/released per second in IRIX or Solaris.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next parent reply other threads:[~2000-02-12 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200002130042.QAA22405@clock.engr.sgi.com>
2000-02-13 2:07 ` Larry McVoy [this message]
[not found] <200002132058.MAA22259@work.bitmover.com>
2000-02-14 19:29 ` Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux Aman Singla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200002130207.SAA31705@work.bitmover.com \
--to=lm@bitmover.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu \
--cc=zamsden@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox