Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:46:08 -0700 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: Scaling noise |
| |
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 04:21:16AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Thursday 04 September 2003 02:49, Larry McVoy wrote: > > It's much better to have a bunch of OS's and pull > > them together than have one and try and pry it apart. > > This is bogus. The numbers clearly don't work if the ccCluster is made of > uniprocessors, so obviously the SMP locking has to be implemented anyway, to > get each node up to the size just below the supposed knee in the scaling > curve. This eliminates the argument about saving complexity and/or work.
If you thought before you spoke you'd realize how wrong you are. How many locks are there in the IRIX/Solaris/Linux I/O path? How many are needed for 2-4 way scaling?
Here's the litmus test: list all the locks in the kernel and the locking hierarchy. If you, a self claimed genius, can't do it, how can the rest of us mortals possibly do it? Quick. You have 30 seconds, I want a list. A complete list with the locking hierarchy, no silly awk scripts. You have to show which locks can deadlock, from memory.
No list? Cool, you just proved my point. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |