Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:36:59 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP Message-ID: <20130110193659.GA27156@server.rulingia.com> In-Reply-To: <1357611958.66651.YahooMailClassic@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1357611958.66651.YahooMailClassic@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2013-Jan-07 18:25:58 -0800, Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> wr= ote: >I have a situation where I have to run 9.1 on an old single core >box. Does anyone have a handle on whether it's better to build a non >SMP kernel or to just use a standard SMP build with just the one >core? Another input for this decision is kern/173322. Currently on x86, atomic operations within kernel modules are implemented using calls to code in the kernel, which do or don't use lock prefixes depending on whethur the kernel was built as SMP. My proposed change changes kernel modules to inline atomic operations but always include lock prefixes (effectively reverting r49999). I'm appreciate anyone who feels like testing the impact of this change. --=20 Peter Jeremy --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlDvGFsACgkQ/opHv/APuIdc3QCgsCHQWw6JG2nFg0iWRQDfbWpQ X8kAnROz6oMevcQVqqGDs22nnj/3aFLW =K4kF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130110193659.GA27156>