From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Nov 30 07:34:14 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA08520
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:34:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.15.68.22])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA08499;
          Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:34:10 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA00461;
	Tue, 1 Dec 1998 02:33:53 +1100
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 02:33:53 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199811301533.CAA00461@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, mike@smith.net.au
Subject: Re: Dog Sloooow SMP
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jc@irbs.com, smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>> >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.
>
>Care to comment on which operations aren't OK?  I did ask for this in 
>the review phase, with no feedback.

Most wrmsr()s and rdmsr()s.

Bruce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message