Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:27:04AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. It's not a lack of co-operation.. it's a lack of communication. I didn't see an any lists that anyone was doing this yet and thought I'd get the ball rolling to promote discussion.. I'm dumfounded to discover that you've done work here already as I thought I'd have heard of it. We've been waiting on JHB's (and others) locking changes on the proc structure because those will do nothing but make conflicts in the patches jasone has already. Has JHB made all the proc changes he was going to? -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:27:04AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. It's not a lack of co-operation.. it's a lack of communication. I didn't see an any lists that anyone was doing this yet and thought I'd get the ball rolling to promote discussion.. I'm dumfounded to discover that you've done work here already as I thought I'd have heard of it. We've been waiting on JHB's (and others) locking changes on the proc structure because those will do nothing but make conflicts in the patches jasone has already. Has JHB made all the proc changes he was going to? Probably not entirely, but enough. I think you guys should go ahead. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2001-Jan-27 00:33:23 -0800, Root Dude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've broken the proc structure into 4 structures. Leaving aside the issue of whether or your efforts were a waste of time, I have some comments on the ordering of fields. Since the fields are being re-arranged anyway, I'd like to suggest that the implementation characteristics be taken into account. I'm mainly thinking of padding between fields here. A second, far less important issue is the interaction between field order and code size on the IA32. Given that most structure references are base+offset, there's an extra 3-byte overhead in accessing fields more than 127 bytes from the pointer - there's no direct speed penalty except on the 80386, but there is an indirect penalty for larger code (ie bigger cache footprint). This suggests that fields with a high static reference count should be towards the front of structures. to counter this, it has been reported that puting fields elsewher can reduce cache thrashing as most structures have the important fields at the front. It's hard to know which effect would be greater.. :-) Peter -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( OZ) World tour 2000-2001 --- X_.---._/ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Root Dude writes: Here's a first step. I've broken the proc structure into 4 structures. [...] Uhm Julian, You are aware that other people are working on this stuff too ? well considering that I was int he discussions and since then no-one has said anything, no as far as I know, no-one is currently working on this... if htey are then hey shuld have mentionned it to dan eischen and me since we were leading the discussions. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( OZ) World tour 2000-2001 --- X_.---._/ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
Jason Evans wrote: On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:33:23AM -0800, Root Dude wrote: Here's a first step. This is very disappointing, Julian. You've duplicated work that I've already done, and if you've been paying attention at all, you know that it was already done. Even if you haven't been paying attention, I find it particularly telling that you never even sent me email about this. I didn't even know I was going to do it, How could I let you know I was going to :-) ... it only took 5 hours while sitting in economy class.. you couldn't tell, but I sent it from the passenger lounge at singapore airport. This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. It's not a lack of co-operation.. it's a lack of communication. I didn't see an any lists that anyone was doing this yet and thought I'd get the ball rolling to promote discussion.. I'm dumfounded to discover that you've done work here already as I thought I'd have heard of it. I'm sad you take it as an insult. All I want is to start discussion, and I was doing it as a way of clarifying my thoughts as to what wqas needed. Jason Jason,. how would I know you have done this? As the person who was leading the discussion on arch, I assumed that if anyone did it they would mention it at least and that I would hear about it.. I assumed that since no-one mentionned anything about it, that they were waiting until the SMP locking was a litlle more settled before starting. I've been paying attention in smp, arch and current, and seen no mention of it, and I sent an email on this 3 months ago that no-one really responded to.. Is there another list I should be on that I don't know about? And anyhow, It only took about 5 hours on a plane.. I was amazed at how little work it was and how quick it was.. I was doing it only as a thought exercise but to my amazement it actually worked !! If you've already done this, then 'great' but you could have answered my previous email asking if anyone was doing it yet.. You can hardly say that you didn't know I was interested in it (BTW The comments I made on your doc still stand, though I noticed the last I looked that the doc had'nt changed..) -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( OZ) World tour 2000-2001 --- X_.---._/ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. It's not a lack of co-operation.. it's a lack of communication. I didn't see an any lists that anyone was doing this yet and thought I'd get the ball rolling to promote discussion.. I'm dumfounded to discover that you've done work here already as I thought I'd have heard of it. I'm sad you take it as an insult. All I want is to start discussion, and I was doing it as a way of clarifying my thoughts as to what wqas needed. Um, Julian - I have known about this for a good couple of months. I can't remember specifically _how_ I know; suffice to say there has been a fair bit of dialogue on the lists and Jason's progress-page has a good overview. http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/smp/ M -- Mark Murray Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
Mark Murray wrote: This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. It's not a lack of co-operation.. it's a lack of communication. I didn't see an any lists that anyone was doing this yet and thought I'd get the ball rolling to promote discussion.. I'm dumfounded to discover that you've done work here already as I thought I'd have heard of it. I'm sad you take it as an insult. All I want is to start discussion, and I was doing it as a way of clarifying my thoughts as to what wqas needed. Um, Julian - I have known about this for a good couple of months. I can't remember specifically _how_ I know; suffice to say there has been a fair bit of dialogue on the lists and Jason's progress-page has a good overview. http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/smp/ Ok so I had another look and I was mostly right the first time.. That is the SMP page. This is kernel support for threading.. A differnt issue. There is no mention on the SMP progress page of ANYONE splitting the process structure. Looking around his site I found the 'kse' page http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/kse previously I only knew of http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/refs/freebsd_kse/freebsd_kse.html From the newly found page I see that indeed he has reported having done this.. But I didn't know about that page before. I sent a mail on the topic on November 26 to -arch (where threading conversation was based) and with JasonE specifically CC'd. So he cannot claim that he wasn't informed. (others reponded to the mail so I know it went out). (He didn't respond) If he had bothered to answer my mail with the fact that he had just done this a few days before, I would have been delighted. Since I was the person that was instrumental in pusing the KSE model forward, I find it strange that Jason didn't let me know what was going on. I only found this page because I figured that there must be something there that I didn't know about, after others (the first being phk) told me that "Hey Jason's already done that". I'm on -arch, -current and -smp and I didn't see any comments on this. Blaming me is the wrong direction to point the finger.. we just need to ensure that all players know what is currently being discussed where. In any case it was only a 5 hour hack so if I've duplicated his work I've only wasted 5 hours of my time. I'm pleased that Jason did this and I'm trying to find out where I can get a copy of his work to look at. M -- Mark Murray Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( OZ) World tour 2000-2001 --- X_.---._/ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
On 2001-Jan-27 00:33:23 -0800, Root Dude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've broken the proc structure into 4 structures. Leaving aside the issue of whether or your efforts were a waste of time, I have some comments on the ordering of fields. Since the fields are being re-arranged anyway, I'd like to suggest that the implementation characteristics be taken into account. I'm mainly thinking of padding between fields here. A second, far less important issue is the interaction between field order and code size on the IA32. Given that most structure references are base+offset, there's an extra 3-byte overhead in accessing fields more than 127 bytes from the pointer - there's no direct speed penalty except on the 80386, but there is an indirect penalty for larger code (ie bigger cache footprint). This suggests that fields with a high static reference count should be towards the front of structures. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Root Dude writes: Here's a first step. I've broken the proc structure into 4 structures. [...] Uhm Julian, You are aware that other people are working on this stuff too ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: kernel threading: the first steps [patch]
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 12:33:23AM -0800, Root Dude wrote: Here's a first step. This is very disappointing, Julian. You've duplicated work that I've already done, and if you've been paying attention at all, you know that it was already done. Even if you haven't been paying attention, I find it particularly telling that you never even sent me email about this. This is the single most flagrant lack of cooperation I have experienced while working with the FreeBSD Project. I'm truly dumbfounded. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
