From owner-freebsd-smp Sun Jan 16 10:20:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from smtp05.wxs.nl (smtp05.wxs.nl [195.121.6.57]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C28D14F70; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:20:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asmodai@wxs.nl) Received: from daemon.ninth-circle.org ([195.121.197.76]) by smtp05.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 4.05) with ESMTP id FOFXLX01.D76; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:20:21 +0100 Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by daemon.ninth-circle.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02392; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:06:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:06:12 +0100 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai To: "Kenneth D. Merry" Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Andrew Gallatin , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dell PowerEdge 2400 & RCC PCI chipset? Message-ID: <20000116190612.B283@daemon.ninth-circle.org> References: <200001111922.NAA07463@free.pcs> <20000111133123.C409@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20000111124219.A76365@panzer.kdm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000111124219.A76365@panzer.kdm.org>; from ken@kdm.org on Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 12:42:19PM -0700 Organisation: Ninth-Circle Enterprises Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Please strip either smp or hackers on the next replies ] -On [20000112 00:00], Kenneth D. Merry (ken@kdm.org) wrote: > >Anyone have a URL for RCC? I just spend 30 minutes digging. No URL to be find. All tech forums have URL's for all participants, except for RCC (Reliance Computer Corporation). -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl] Documentation nutter. *BSD: Technical excellence at its best... The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project We must all hang together, else we shall all hang separately... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Jan 17 5:47: 0 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from dozer.skynet.be (dozer.skynet.be [195.238.2.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF5214C94 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 05:46:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by dozer.skynet.be (8.9.3/odie-relay-v1.0) with ESMTP id OAA20002 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:46:49 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@foxbert.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000116125815.A88640@keltia.freenix.fr> References: <20000116002113.B75768@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000116125815.A88640@keltia.freenix.fr> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:03:30 +0100 To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: PNPBIOS + Dell PowerEdge = panic() Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:58 PM +0100 2000/1/16, Ollivier Robert wrote: > Speaking of PowerEdge, do we support them in SMP under -STABLE ? A friend of > mine has tried to run 3.4-R in SMP mode on one of them and it doesn't like it > apparently. Sorry if I don't have more info as he's now on vacation... > > It doesn't like the 2nd APIC in the system AFAIK. Any more idea ? I've got a PowerEdge 1300 running two PIII CPUs and 3.2 (RELEASE? STABLE? I'm not sure), and it seems to be running just fine. I've heard from others on either the -current or -stable lists that they're doing just fine with other PowerEdge hardware configs, and I believe even later versions of the OS. In fact, you might know the machine that I'm using in this role -- didn't we recently add you as a peer? ;-) -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ____________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Jan 17 20: 9: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from frmug.org (frmug-gw.frmug.org [193.56.58.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4419015116 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:08:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by frmug.org (8.9.3/frmug-2.5/nospam) with UUCP id FAA24681 for smp@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:08:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr) Received: by keltia.freenix.fr (Postfix, from userid 101) id 39E958863; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:43:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:43:53 +0100 From: Ollivier Robert To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PNPBIOS + Dell PowerEdge = panic() Message-ID: <20000118004353.A4291@keltia.freenix.fr> Mail-Followup-To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20000116002113.B75768@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000116125815.A88640@keltia.freenix.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from blk@skynet.be on Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 01:03:30PM +0100 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT/ELF AMD-K6/200 & 2x PPro/200 SMP Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org According to Brad Knowles: > they're doing just fine with other PowerEdge hardware configs, and I > believe even later versions of the OS. I'll check with Pierre when he's back... (ahhh skiing...) I should have ask the precise type/model. > In fact, you might know the machine that I'm using in this role > -- didn't we recently add you as a peer? ;-) I might know this particular machine, yes :-) -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT #77: Thu Dec 30 12:49:51 CET 1999 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Jan 21 1:34:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.199.247]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429D915452; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:34:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp) Received: from rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (tanimura@localhost.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W-rina.r-0.1-11.01.2000) with ESMTP id SAA86473; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:34:00 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:33:59 +0900 Message-ID: <14472.10247.374655.13283E@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> From: Seigo Tanimura To: smp@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Using spinning time efficiently? Cc: Seigo Tanimura User-Agent: Wanderlust/1.0.3 (Notorious) SEMI/1.13.4 (Terai) FLIM/1.12.7 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Y=FEzaki?=) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 8) (Bryce Canyon) (i386--freebsd) Organization: Digital Library Research Division, Information Techinology Centre, The University of Tokyo MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.4 - "Terai") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have my SMP(dual) box running -current at home for local news and mail/ML server. Last night, when the news-mail gateway started to feed the articles to the MLs, I noticed that the ratio of CPU time usage for system call exceeded more than 50%, showing 55-60% every now and then. The frequencies of system call and interrupt are both around 13-18[k/sec]. (NB HZ in my box is increased up to 16kHz) I once thought something might be wrong, and then found (ALT)SYSCALL_LOCK spinning to wait for the lock to be released. Now I am wondering if we can contribute spinning time to anything else, say running another process, before the lock gets released. Is is possible to do so? -- Seigo Tanimura To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Jan 21 1:37:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060B6151A2 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:37:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA00352; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:01:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:01:19 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Seigo Tanimura Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using spinning time efficiently? Message-ID: <20000121020119.O14030@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <14472.10247.374655.13283E@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <14472.10247.374655.13283E@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; from tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp on Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:33:59PM +0900 Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Seigo Tanimura [000121 01:59] wrote: > I have my SMP(dual) box running -current at home for local news and > mail/ML server. Last night, when the news-mail gateway started to feed > the articles to the MLs, I noticed that the ratio of CPU time usage > for system call exceeded more than 50%, showing 55-60% every now and > then. The frequencies of system call and interrupt are both around > 13-18[k/sec]. (NB HZ in my box is increased up to 16kHz) > > I once thought something might be wrong, and then found > (ALT)SYSCALL_LOCK spinning to wait for the lock to be released. Now I > am wondering if we can contribute spinning time to anything else, say > running another process, before the lock gets released. Is is possible > to do so? The scheduler needs to be made thread safe before that can happen, it looks easy at first until you realize that it starts calling other complex parts of the system. This is on several people's TODO list. :) -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Jan 21 2:54:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.199.247]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B281D14CD0 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:54:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp) Received: from rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (tanimura@localhost.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W-rina.r-0.1-11.01.2000) with ESMTP id TAA89464; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:54:01 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:54:00 +0900 Message-ID: <14472.15048.86946.72159A@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> From: Seigo Tanimura To: bright@wintelcom.net Cc: tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using spinning time efficiently? In-Reply-To: In your message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:01:19 -0800" <20000121020119.O14030@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <14472.10247.374655.13283E@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <20000121020119.O14030@fw.wintelcom.net> Cc: Seigo Tanimura User-Agent: Wanderlust/1.0.3 (Notorious) SEMI/1.13.4 (Terai) FLIM/1.12.7 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Y=FEzaki?=) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 8) (Bryce Canyon) (i386--freebsd) Organization: Digital Library Research Division, Information Techinology Centre, The University of Tokyo MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.4 - "Terai") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:01:19 -0800, Alfred Perlstein said: >> I once thought something might be wrong, and then found >> (ALT)SYSCALL_LOCK spinning to wait for the lock to be released. Now I >> am wondering if we can contribute spinning time to anything else, say >> running another process, before the lock gets released. Is is possible >> to do so? Alfred> The scheduler needs to be made thread safe before that can happen, Alfred> it looks easy at first until you realize that it starts calling Alfred> other complex parts of the system. Alfred> This is on several people's TODO list. :) Then, what I actually need would be some kind of detailed books of OS. I have not learned OS quite systematically, so it would be a good opportunity for me to do so. Anyway, the first task of mine seems to understand the fundamental technology and issues. ...except that book shops are likely to close soon :( -- Seigo Tanimura To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Jan 21 5: 8:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mail.nyct.net (bsd4.nyct.net [204.141.86.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFD914D42; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:08:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mbac@nyct.net) Received: from bsd1.nyct.net (mbac@bsd1.nyct.net [204.141.86.3]) by mail.nyct.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA21367; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:08:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mbac@nyct.net) Received: from localhost (mbac@localhost) by bsd1.nyct.net (8.8.8/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06755; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:08:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mbac@nyct.net) X-Authentication-Warning: bsd1.nyct.net: mbac owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:08:26 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Bacarella To: Seigo Tanimura Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using spinning time efficiently? In-Reply-To: <14472.10247.374655.13283E@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I once thought something might be wrong, and then found > (ALT)SYSCALL_LOCK spinning to wait for the lock to be released. Now I > am wondering if we can contribute spinning time to anything else, say > running another process, before the lock gets released. Is is possible > to do so? I'm the last person who you'd speak to for an authoritative answer to a FreeBSD question, but I'll try fielding it. What version of FreeBSD? Your kernel might be spinlocking other processes out because the kernel isn't totally re-entrant. Yet. Version number here might be significant. At least, this is the only reason I can think of for spinlocking away at syscall entry. In such a case, recognizing this situation and then just deciding to run another process instead of spinning away helplessly wouldn't do much good. To run another process, it'd need to enter the kernel and select one. That's still the same problem. -MB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Jan 21 5:23:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from smtppzh.pzh.nl (webshield.pzh.nl [194.178.168.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D685A14D7B for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:23:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from MULHUIJZEN@PZH.NL) Received: FROM smtp.pzh.nl BY smtppzh.pzh.nl ; Fri Jan 21 14:22:22 2000 0000 Received: from PZH40-1-Message_Server by smtp.pzh.nl with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:22:27 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:21:56 +0100 From: "ROGIER MULHUIJZEN" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Using spinning time efficiently? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >I'm the last person who you'd speak to for an authoritative answer to a >FreeBSD question, but I'll try fielding it. Same here =) What I have gathered about spinning on a lock is that it is indeed waiting for a lock, but not sleeping so that the process doesn't get context switches etc. and thus can react instantly when the lock is freed. So yes, you pay for it in CPU util but you gain the advantage of a much faster reaction time. Thus spinning should only be used on locks of which you know could be freed straight away. I'm not sure this is the truth, but if it is, using spinning time for running another process totally defeats the purpose of spinning. You'd be better of using a semaphore and sleeping. Can someone give an authoritative reply to this? =) DocWilco To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Sat Jan 22 18:59:24 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from rmx01.mail.com (rmx01.mail.com [165.251.32.149]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8AC15518 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 18:59:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scip7050@programmer.net) Received: from weba1.iname.net (weba1.iname.net [165.251.4.11]) by rmx01.mail.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA15693 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 21:57:43 -0500 (EST) From: scip7050@programmer.net Received: (from root@localhost) by weba1.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.9.2.Alpha2) id VAA11358; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 21:57:43 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0001222157425P.27824@weba1.iname.net> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 21:57:42 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: kernel thread issue Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi! I have some questions which I would like some kernel hackers could answer me. First, Why kernel thread cannot be spawned out for SMP case? The comment written in kern_fork.c said that "cannot have same PTD on both cpus, the PTD needs to be move out of PTmap and be per-process". Could anyone explain on this comment? Second, As I know that most kernel design to support kernel thread, will have to explicitly define another 'thread' data structure and try to put scheduling related information and hardware PCB and others to the thread structure. It seems that if the kernel is designed in this way to support the kernel thread, it makes things more explicitly defned. For instance, Solaris 2.x can even use the kernel thread to schedule interrupt handler in certain case. Hence it makes the kernel fully preemptible. The question is what will be the impact to the kernel if thread data structure is added in and used as the fundamental active scheduling objects? Thanks. Regards, NgCW ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Sat Jan 22 19:42: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9712214BE9 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:42:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08573; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:05:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:05:57 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: scip7050@programmer.net Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel thread issue Message-ID: <20000122200557.B26520@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <0001222157425P.27824@weba1.iname.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <0001222157425P.27824@weba1.iname.net>; from scip7050@programmer.net on Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:57:42PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * scip7050@programmer.net [000122 19:26] wrote: > Hi! > > I have some questions which I would like some kernel hackers could answer me. > > First, > Why kernel thread cannot be spawned out for SMP case? > The comment written in kern_fork.c said that "cannot have same > PTD on both cpus, the PTD needs to be move out of PTmap and be > per-process". Could anyone explain on this comment? I'm not all that up to speed on 3.x, however what it seems to mean is that the CPUs in 3.x don't share page table descriptors in such a way that makes it possible to safely have two programs sharing them on seperate processors. 4.0 Has fixed this (afaik thanks to Alan Cox), since 4.0 is slated for an upcoming release I wouldn't concern myself with this too much. > > Second, > As I know that most kernel design to support kernel thread, will > have to explicitly define another 'thread' data structure and try > to put scheduling related information and hardware PCB and others > to the thread structure. Yes, this is the way to do it without having ugly things like kthreads polluting the process namespace. > It seems that if the kernel is designed in this way to support > the kernel thread, it makes things more explicitly defned. Yes, Linux does this with 'struct task'. > For instance, Solaris 2.x can even use the kernel thread to > schedule interrupt handler in certain case. Hence it makes the > kernel fully preemptible. The question is what will be the impact > to the kernel if thread data structure is added in and used as the > fundamental active scheduling objects? That's not what makes the kernel fully preemptible, it helps, but it's not the only key you need. As far as seperating processes from tasks, the concepts have already been thought out and discussed thouroughly on the arch- mailing list. You can check it out at: http://www.freebsd.org/support.html#mailing-list searching for 'KSE' will probably give you what you are looking for. Btw, for someone with such insight into the code you ought to have a properly configured mail client. :) please wrap lines at 70 characters. thanks, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message