Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:11:40 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org>, Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys smp.h src/sys/kern subr_smp.c src/sy Message-ID: <XFMail.020307181140.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4774.1015539960@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Mar-02 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <XFMail.020307171639.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: > >>Does that make sense? I'm not say we need to support some wildly sparse >>range, >>but we shouldn't assume 0 and 1 for any dual CPU system. > > What is the problem with putting a logical CPU id in a word in the > per-cpu area ? As far as I know, that would even be faster to read > than the APIC-id ? Nothing. We actully do this now. We just base the logical ID on the physical ID now in a 1:1 fashion. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020307181140.jhb>