Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:23:31 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> 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: <6023.1015543411@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:11:40 EST." <XFMail.020307181140.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <XFMail.020307181140.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: > >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. So if we change this not to, JeffR and others needing a per-cpu array index will be happy. Going first ? Going second ? Going ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. 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?6023.1015543411>