Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:54:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:53:51 -0500 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:50050 "EHLO bitmover.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:53:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:53:38 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Larry McVoy , "David S. Miller" , davidel@xmailserver.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com, riel@conectiva.com.br, lars.spam@nocrew.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, hps@intermeta.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SMP/cc Cluster description Message-ID: <20011206115338.E27589@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Phillips , Larry McVoy , "David S. Miller" , davidel@xmailserver.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com, riel@conectiva.com.br, lars.spam@nocrew.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, hps@intermeta.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011206135224.12c4b123.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20011205.235617.23011309.davem@redhat.com> <20011206000216.B18034@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from phillips@bonn-fries.net on Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:42:05PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:42:05PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On December 6, 2001 09:02 am, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:56:17PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > > These lockless algorithms, instructions like CAS, DCAS, "infinite > > > consensus number", it's all crap. You have to seperate out the access > > > areas amongst different cpus so they don't collide, and none of these > > > mechanisms do that. > > > > Err, Dave, that's *exactly* the point of the ccCluster stuff. You get > > all that seperation for every data structure for free. Think about > > it a bit. Aren't you going to feel a little bit stupid if you do all > > this work, one object at a time, and someone can come along and do the > > whole OS in one swoop? Yeah, I'm spouting crap, it isn't that easy, > > but it is much easier than the route you are taking. > > What I don't get after looking at your material, is how you intend to do the > locking. Sharing a mmap across OS instances is fine, but how do processes on > the two different OS's avoid stepping on each other when they access the same > file? Exactly the same way they would if they were two processes on a traditional SMP OS. -- --- 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/