Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:40 -0500 From: Matthew Fuller <fullermd@linkfast.net> To: Steve Passe <smp@timing.com> Cc: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <20000524161040.Z660@linkfast.net> In-Reply-To: <200005241528.JAA23192@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>; from smp@timing.com on Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0600 References: <200005241446.IAA05589@berserker.bsdi.com> <200005241528.JAA23192@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0600, a little birdie told me that Steve Passe remarked > > We would have no need for SMP on 486 or 586, however losing UP on 486 > would be a problem. Just as a side point (a fair bit of this discussion is over my head, so I'm not sure if this is really relevant or not, but...), I would dispute the second half of the first part above. While SMP on 586 is certainly not mainstream, I'm sure I'm far from the only one with a multi-proc 586 machine. It'd be quite a shame to abandon that market without at least more looking into the problems that would be faced in supporting it. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@linkfast.net Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000524161040.Z660>