Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:38:52 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000525130244.95256W-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <200005250127.SAA03314@mass.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Mike Smith wrote: > > 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) > or even lock_i386.ko or lock_i486.ko if the differences in functionality provided by the different processors are that great. Of course, it's not that much help if we call cyrix MMX capable CPUs 486-class cpus. > -- > \\ 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1000525130244.95256W-100000>