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