lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux
Larry McVoy wrote:
> 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.

Has anyone done any research on what I called 'NUPA' -- NUMA for
processors, basically ??

This is probably a totally crazy idea, but I was wondering how possible
it would be for Linux to seamlessly support, say, a PowerPC Mac or Sun
with an x86 accelerator card. Or, to get even crazier, offload some
processing onto a GeForce or one of those video cards with dual Rage128
chips.

If 'NUPA' support existed, it seems like a prerequisite would be
eliminating many of the scaling problems typically associated with
OS<->hardware SMP interaction. ie. creating spinlocks useable by only a
small portion of the available processors in the system. and that's
only the tip of the iceberg.

--
Jeff Garzik | "Vegetarian" is the Indian word
Building 1024 | for 'lousy hunter.'
MandrakeSoft, Inc. |

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.094 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site