Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:26:00 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys smp.h src/sys/kern subr_smp.c src/sy Message-ID: <4774.1015539960@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:16:39 EST." <XFMail.020307171639.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <XFMail.020307171639.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: >Does that make sense? I'm not say we need to support some wildly sparse range, >but we shouldn't assume 0 and 1 for any dual CPU system. What is the problem with putting a logical CPU id in a word in the per-cpu area ? As far as I know, that would even be faster to read than the APIC-id ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4774.1015539960>