home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
- From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Subject: Re: Sun 600MP Benchmark Anomaly
- Message-ID: <1992Jul27.155559.19995@crd.ge.com>
- Date: 27 Jul 92 15:55:59 GMT
- References: <l6asqqINNhvm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <l6c2l5INNcds@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <JIM.92Jul24155432@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>
- Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
- Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
- Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
- Lines: 25
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
-
- In article <JIM.92Jul24155432@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
-
- | So does this mean that this "symmetrical multi-processor SunOS" isn't
- | really what it claims to be? If only one CPU at a time can be executing
- | interrupt service code, what we've got is an OS with one dedicated
- | (but not fixed) I/O processor.
-
- The post from Sun seemed (to me) to indicate that there were problems
- with the current kernel, but that the hardware allowed ints to be
- dispatched to any processor. I read that as allowing multiple processors
- to service interrupts, assuming that the software sets the "next int"
- register to another processor.
-
- There are tradeoffs to having multiple processors handle interrupts, and
- if the latency is low enough with one processor you are possibly better
- off with using only one and avoiding all the context switches. If one
- can't keep up, then you will have to take the CS overhead and use them
- all. I'm reassured that Sun has left this open to software change, and
- I'm sure if people complain about how it works in Solaris 2.0 Sun will
- change it.
- --
- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
- It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise rational people, able to
- understand calculus, compound interest, and the income tax form, can
- continue to believe that poker is a game of chance.
-