Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 19:48:32 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, peter@netplex.com.au Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jc@irbs.com, mike@smith.net.au, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dog Sloooow SMP Message-ID: <199811090848.TAA14661@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> It's only OK for MII's because of various `#if 0's and `#ifdef SMP's >> that prevent non-OK code from running on MII's. > >I think it should be CPU specific, not cpu class specific. The >model-specific-registers are very specific to the Intel family. I'd be a >lot happier if it was 'if (cpu == CPU_686 || cpu == CPU_PII) ...' Of >course, feature tests would be better. 'if (cpu_features & CF_PPRO_MSR)...' >The problem is that there is a 'cpu_feature' already for the CPUID. We >need more general flags than what Intel choose to tell us. FreeBSD should use its own bitmap of capabilities and not test the Intel flags except once to translate them. 32 general flags might even be enough. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811090848.TAA14661>