From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  6 12:15:03 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BBB7316A4CE; Thu,  6 May 2004 12:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9EA8743D58; Thu,  6 May 2004 12:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP
          id <20040506191502015007od59e>; Thu, 6 May 2004 19:15:03 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA83393;
	Thu, 6 May 2004 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200405061417.51886.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405061214020.82978-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: Gerrit Nagelhout <gnagelhout@sandvine.com>
cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: 4.7 vs 5.2.1 SMP/UP bridging performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 19:15:03 -0000



On Thu, 6 May 2004, John Baldwin wrote:

[lots of complicated stuff removed]

You'd think that intel would have implemented a simple, fast
smp-capable lock primative by now..