Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 11:25:48 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: jc@irbs.com, mike@smith.net.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dog Sloooow SMP Message-ID: <199811080325.LAA22362@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:43:52 %2B1100." <199811080243.NAA32642@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > >No idea. I've received verification that fixing this for all 686-class > >CPUs seems to work (ie. it's OK on the Cyrix MII and doesn't appear to > >impact performance there), so the tests are now generalised for the > >entire 686-class. > > 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. > Bruce Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811080325.LAA22362>