Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:15:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm) Cc: terry@lambert.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, nathan@netrail.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: does freebsd support SMP? Message-ID: <199606101915.MAA04084@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199606100540.NAA02800@spinner.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at Jun 10, 96 01:39:59 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >The locking code (mplock.s) only checks for non-zero. > > Yes.. smp_active=1 means you can get the second cpu up in protected mode > and running virtual, but not scheduling yet. ??? Not scheduling? I thought it was scheduling? Should I go back to my October 1994 kernel + hacks + Jack's patches + my patches to be able to work on kernel reentrancy at this time? I've been hacking FS code in this envirnment for some time already, without a lot of problems. When are you planning on committing your changes for APIC messaging, etc.? What can I do to help get scheduling up? I need multiple kernel entrances to test conflict resoloution and transitive closure calculation over the lock hierarchy code I've been pounding on... is the page containing the shared mutex tagged non-cacheable? Is there an allocation method for getting more of these pages, if I need them? Re: the NCPU vs. MAXCPU ... the reason I made a distinction is that you may not want all available CPU's active (I can only think of testing as wanting this, but it could happen). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606101915.MAA04084>