Re: MPSAFE TTY schedule

From: Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:32:56 +0200
Hello everyone,

Today is July 20, which means I'm supposed to send you a message:

* Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl> wrote:
> July 20 2008:
> 	Send another heads-up to the lists about the new TTY layer.
> 	Kindly ask people to test the patchset, port more drivers, etc.

As usual, the latest mpsafetty patchset can be found here. I would
really appreciate it if I could get more reviews on the code. Thanks!

	http://www.il.fontys.nl/~ed/projects/mpsafetty/patches/

The following drivers have not been ported to the new TTY layer yet:

	cy(4), digi(4), ng_h4(4), ng_tty(4), nmdm(4),
	rc(4), rp(4), si(4), sio(4), snp(4), ubser(4).

I've been working on nmdm(4). I'll probably get it working in time. If
not it will be fixed not long after the integration next month. The line
disciplines like snp(4), ng_tty(4) and ng_h4(4) can only be fixed after
the import, because the hooks layer will be written after the import.

In the other news: kris_at_ reported a possible performance regression to
me. He discovered `make -C /usr/ports index' consumed more system time
on his hardware when the mpsafetty patches were applied. For some
reason, I'm not capable of reproducing them. I even experience a
performance gain when running mpsafetty, which is quite plausible,
because I've also made some small improvements to `struct session'
locking, but we also don't pick up Giant in kern_proc.c anymore.

Because kris_at_ committed a patch to improve `make index' performance
yesterday, I re-ran my tests today, showing the performance difference
is now nihil. Here are the raw numbers:

	http://80386.nl/files/mpsafetty-stats.txt

Maybe someone is interested in performing more thorough benchmarks?

Yours,
-- 
 Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl>
 WWW: http://80386.nl/

Received on Sun Jul 20 2008 - 10:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:33 UTC