Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:38:46 +0200 From: Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz> To: skylar@cs.earlham.edu Cc: backyard1454-bsd@yahoo.com, Jordi Carrillo <jordilin@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP detection Message-ID: <1157027926.1045.13.camel@genius.i.cz> In-Reply-To: <44F62CEE.9040202@cs.earlham.edu> References: <94ff3700608301020l34251166nbdb4d72842e1bb86@mail.gmail.com> <20060830181240.65785.qmail@web83106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <94ff3700608301302n13f9aabcs935fbe6403601d30@mail.gmail.com> <44F6036E.7050203@cs.earlham.edu> <1156982800.1017.37.camel@genius.i.cz> <44F62CEE.9040202@cs.earlham.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Skylar Thompson wrote: > Michal Mertl wrote: > > No! Kernel threads (e.g. handling interrupts) aren't that much different > > to normal processes. > > > > Logical CPUs on a single HTT capable CPU share most of the CPU logic, > > especially all the external stuff (handling interrupts). Scheduling > > handling of interrupts on the "secondary/logical" core wouldn't > > probably help performance at all (if that is at all possible). > > > > Could you clarify note 20031022 in /usr/src/UPDATING? It states that HTT > CPUs are used for interrupts if they are detected, even if they aren't > used by regular processes. Was this something that just showed up in > pre-6.x releases? > I think it means that if an interrupt would for some reason be signalled to the unused logical core it wouldn't be lost or something. Michal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1157027926.1045.13.camel>