From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 24 18:25:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (mass.cdrom.com [204.216.28.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92ED937B583 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 18:25:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03314; Wed, 24 May 2000 18:27:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200005250127.SAA03314@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Terry Lambert Cc: cp@bsdi.com (Chuck Paterson), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 May 2000 01:21:10 -0000." <200005250121.SAA11655@usr05.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:27:30 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I think the work required to build two kernels instead of one, and > then CPU-testing in the loader to pick one, is really trivial. I > think there are better approaches to the problem than this, but > this is enough to throw out that idea entirely. Are the mutexes inlined, or are they all function calls? If the latter, loading lock_smp.ko vs. lock_std.ko would be pretty trivial... 8) -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message