Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:36:51 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: peter@netplex.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jc@irbs.com, mike@smith.net.au, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dog Sloooow SMP Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981109113234.5111D-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199811090848.TAA14661@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> 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. > > > >I think it should be CPU specific, not cpu class specific. The > >model-specific-registers are very specific to the Intel family. I'd be a > >lot happier if it was 'if (cpu == CPU_686 || cpu == CPU_PII) ...' Of > >course, feature tests would be better. 'if (cpu_features & CF_PPRO_MSR)...' > >The problem is that there is a 'cpu_feature' already for the CPUID. We > >need more general flags than what Intel choose to tell us. > > FreeBSD should use its own bitmap of capabilities and not test the Intel > flags except once to translate them. 32 general flags might even be > enough. > How about 64 for the odd case that K7 actually materialises as promised and people start putting them in dual motherboards? Or will that (SMP support for EV7 like systems) resolved with support for SMP Alpha? > Bruce Sander There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future - all these are just illusions. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.981109113234.5111D-100000>