Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:10:14 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Andy Farkas <andyf@speednet.com.au> Cc: Eriq Lamar <eqe@cox.net> Subject: Re: smp in 5.1 Message-ID: <20030811231014.GA55200@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030812082147.A85046-100000@hewey.af.speednet.com.au> References: <200308111816.26818.eqe@cox.net> <20030812082147.A85046-100000@hewey.af.speednet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote: > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote: > > > Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so could > > someone tell what they are. I am interested in building dual system using > > mp's but not sure which version would be better. > > Scheduling in 5.1 is broken (sched_ule doesn't even work*). > > Stick with 4.8. > > * for me, sched_ule completely locks up my box, no ping, no keybd. Exact > same kernel with sched_4bsd works fine. > Strange. ULE has worked fine on my UP system for several months and the SMP system I recently obtained from a co-worker hasn't panicked while running ULE. Can you drop into ddb and trace the problem with ULE on your system? -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030811231014.GA55200>