From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar 31 21:12:00 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 595B116A4CE; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout1.pacific.net.au (mailout1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.84])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9DF0C43D2F; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:11:59 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au
	[61.8.0.86])i315Bg4u002769;	Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:11:42 +1000
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	i315BdGQ026063;	Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:11:40 +1000
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:11:38 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <200403311105.19088.john@baldwin.cx>
Message-ID: <20040401145536.A5418@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20040328094048.GA40406@phantom.cris.net>
	<20040330232429.GA65170@phantom.cris.net>
	<xzpn05xq4bh.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200403311105.19088.john@baldwin.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
cc: arch@freebsd.org
cc: Alexey Zelkin <phantom@freebsd.org>
cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
Subject: Re: CFD: XMLification of NOTES
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:12:00 -0000

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, John Baldwin wrote:

> On Tuesday 30 March 2004 06:54 pm, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> > CPU_I386 should not conflict with SMP, but a kernel build with both
> > will be very slow.
>
> No, it does conflict.  There's no cmpxchg on i386 and no one has had the
> desire or time to emulate one for 386 machines.  Doing so would be a wast=
e in
> my opinion as well.

des only claimed that it "should not".

Emulating cmpxchg might make a kernel built with both slow, but the
current CPU_I386 only adds a tiny amount of slowness.  It just doesn't
work on multi-CPU systems if multiple CPUs are actually used.

Does it actually conflict in practice (except for the forced #error)
if the hardware is UP?  jhb's APIC changes made configuring with SMP
not require APIC, so SMP kernels work on UP systems.  Configuring with
I386_CPU shouldn't affect this, but it does because of the forced #error
at compile time.

Bruce