Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:18:50 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, jack.vogel@gmail.com, Mark Atkinson <atkin901@gmail.com> Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP Message-ID: <20130110071850.191a257c@X220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <1357742133.9692.YahooMailClassic@web121601.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130109211439.5b590bf5@X220.ovitrap.com> <1357742133.9692.YahooMailClassic@web121601.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 06:35:33 -0800 (PST) Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> wrote: > > This explanation defies the possibility of a GENERIC kernel, which > of course is an important element of a GPOS. Its too bad that smp > support can't be done with logic rather than a kernel option. > it seems to me that you have a very simply view on what SMP means for software. > The big thing I see is the use of legacy interrupts vs msix. Its not > like flipping off SMP support only changes the scheduler behavior. SMP goes into the applications. A single-CPU kernel must still run these kind of applications. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130110071850.191a257c>