Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:40:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: ithread preemption Message-ID: <15735.49486.931825.65696@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020905163105.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <15735.47756.501169.199225@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <XFMail.20020905163105.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin writes: > > On 05-Sep-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > John Baldwin writes: > > > Solaris doesn't run on alpha, but it also a bit different in its approach. > > > I do wonder if there is a way we can violate an assumption in PAL due to > > > migration though. That is, a thread could return to PAL on a different > > > CPU than the one the interrupt was originally sent to. This might explain > > > why only SMP has problems. > > > > > > > Hey ... I think you have it on the nose! That makes the most sense > > I've heard yet. > > > > Do we have any way to bind a thread to a cpu? > > I used to. Then KSE3 was committed. I suppose I could rewrite it from > scratch again. > Ugh. It would be great if you could. Even if it doesn't fix this, it might be generally useful. Thanks! Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15735.49486.931825.65696>