From owner-cvs-all Thu Mar 7 15:23:57 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C58937B400; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g27NNVnK006024; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:23:31 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: John Baldwin Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Jeff Roberson , Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys smp.h src/sys/kern subr_smp.c src/sy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:11:40 EST." Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:23:31 +0100 Message-ID: <6023.1015543411@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , John Baldwin writes: > >On 07-Mar-02 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message , 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