Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:11:24 -0600 From: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <200004250611.AAA08176@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I said: > I am guessing that little of the above will be MFC'd into 4.0. So the issue > of the current SMP patch set should be based on its merits alone. I would > agree that they in themselves are worthy of MFCing. Lets just not kid Mike Smith replied: > Steve Passe actually argued quite eloquently against his own decision; > the "real work" that actually depends heavily on this foundation is > almost certainly never going to come back to the 4.x branch. Since these > changes don't actually bring any real improvements in and of themselves, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > there's little point in merging them for their own sake. I based my opinion on the belief that they did indeed bring in a performance benefit (I think I remember the value of 7% being tossed around). I took those numbers on face value, if correct I stand by my "decision". I didn't run any tests with code pre-Matts-changes, so I can't confirm or deny them. My "decision" is also based purely on the technical merits of the exercise, I have to admit I never thought much about the issues of stable ABI. Coming from where I do, I readily admit I am a poor judge of this issue... For my post-Matts-changes tests check out: http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/rbenches.html -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD 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?200004250611.AAA08176>