[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Portable binary modules
    Alan Cox <> wrote:

    > Not at the binary level. Our uniprocessor builds make most
    > spinlocks become null code or local cli/sti instructions. That
    > avoids us taking the performance hit. It also means that the locks
    > the SMP module wants to use are not actually there in truth.

    Every single problem that has been mentioned about Binary Portable
    modules for the Linux kernel is solvable. For the case of SMP and UP
    kernel modules, allow the developer the *option* of compiling the
    binary module with or withour SMP support. If compiled with SMP
    support, the module should still work on a UP kernel as the kernel
    would provide dummy locking functions or the UP equivalents to the
    driver. If compiled without SMP, the module would fail to load on SMP
    kernels (with an error message to the system log).

    In many cases binary modules could easily be built as SMP compatible
    without any real performance hit on the system. If there is a
    performance hit, the developer can build both SMP and UP versions of
    the modules.


    | SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software! |
    | Kendall Bennett | Email: |
    | Director of Engineering | Phone: (530) 894 8400 |
    | SciTech Software, Inc. | Fax : (530) 894 9069 |
    | 505 Wall Street | ftp : |
    | Chico, CA 95928, USA | www : |

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:5.076 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site