Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S283924AbRLFUKV>; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:10:21 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S284164AbRLFUKL>; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:10:11 -0500
Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:64642 "EHLO bitmover.bitmover.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S283924AbRLFUKF>;
	Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:10:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:10:04 -0800
From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
        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: <20011206121004.F27589@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>,
	Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
	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> <E16C4PM-0000qu-00@starship.berlin> <20011206115338.E27589@work.bitmover.com> <E16C4r8-0000r0-00@starship.berlin>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <E16C4r8-0000r0-00@starship.berlin>; from phillips@bonn-fries.net on Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:10:51PM +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:10:51PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On December 6, 2001 08:53 pm, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> They'd use locks internal to the VFS and fs, plus Posix-style locks and
> assorted other userland serializers, which don't come for free.  As davem 
> said, you'll have to present a coherent namespace, that's just one of the 
> annoying details.  So far you haven't said much about how such things are 
> going to be handled.

Huh?  Of course not, they'd use mutexes in a mmap-ed file, which uses
the hardware's coherency.  No locks in the vfs or fs, that's all done
in the mmap/page fault path for sure, but once the data is mapped you
aren't dealing with the file system at all.
-- 
---
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/