Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 12:26:22 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Where to start SMP? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970508114028.21666B-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199705071805.MAA04770@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Steve Passe wrote: > Hi, > > > I don't profess to know which is faster/better I just wouldn't want to see > > SMP get bastardised into some weird runtime option you can turn on and off > > really easily. I don't think that's going to be a performance boost ? > > Nor do I. I don't see one kernel binary ever being able to support both UP > and SMP (unless the UP version takes the performance hit). Its a struggle > just to do it with the same sources! If multiprocessor machines take off in a big way (in the small computer market anyway) then it wouldn't matter. It's a marketing decision for you then. I'd be interested to see what the actual performance hit would be, if designed well it might not be so bad for UP, and it would perhaps get more people in on the MP source. Whether that's good or bad isn't for me to decide though. I'm totally undecided on this now, last week I'd have said they should both be completely separate, well that's cleared it up for me. I'm just plain confused/uninformed/uneducated ! > I do see most of the 'minor' SMP options being made runtime, but only within > the context of an SMP only kernel. Well, as a user at least this would make things much easier. -- Steve Roome B.S.C Important Job, Important Sounding Company (B.S.C stands for Bronze Swimming Certificate)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970508114028.21666B-100000>