From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <db825ab8d36f111931672277d989447b@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:35:15 -0400
To: rvs@sun.com, 9fans@9fans.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 and multicores/parallelism/concurrency?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e5f13706-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> >  Plan 9 makes it easy via 9p, its file system/resource sharing
> > protocol. In plan 9, things like graphics and network drivers export a
> > 9p interface (a filetree). Furthermore, 9p is network transparent
> > which means accesses to remote resources look exactly like accesses to
> > local resources, and this is the main trick - processes do not care
> > whether the file they are interested in is being served by the kernel,
> > a userspace process, or a machine half way across the world.
>
> All very true. And it sure does provide enormous benefits on distributed
> memory architectures. But do you know of any part that would be
> beneficial for highly-SMP systems?

do you have some reason to believe that 9p (or just read and write)
is not effective on such a machine?

since scheduling would be the main shared resource, do you think
it would be the limiting factor?

- erik