From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 14:56:16 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76BC7B2; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (heidi.turbocat.net [88.198.202.214]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 370111AC5; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAF6E1FE022; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:56:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54ABF7B7.6090007@selasky.org> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:56:55 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin , FreeBSD Current , markb@mellanox.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Start SMP subsystem earlier References: <54AA8F19.9030300@selasky.org> <54ABF32A.6010409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54ABF32A.6010409@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:56:16 -0000 On 01/06/15 15:37, John Baldwin wrote: > We need a lot more work before this is ready. This is one of the goals > of the multipass new-bus stuff. In particular, we have to enumerate > enough devices to bring event timer hardware up so that timer interrupts > work so that tsleep() will actually sleep. In addition, we also need > idle threads created and working before APs are started as otherwise > they will have no thread to run initially. This is certainly a desired > feature, but it is not as simple as moving the sysinit up I'm afraid. Got it. Thank you! --HPS