From owner-freebsd-smp  Mon Jun 10 12:16:53 1996
Return-Path: owner-smp
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA05973
          for smp-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA05968;
          Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA04084; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:15:53 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199606101915.MAA04084@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: does freebsd support SMP?
To: peter@spinner.dialix.com (Peter Wemm)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:15:53 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, nathan@netrail.net,
        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199606100540.NAA02800@spinner.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at Jun 10, 96 01:39:59 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-smp@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >The locking code (mplock.s) only checks for non-zero.
> 
> Yes..  smp_active=1 means you can get the second cpu up in protected mode
> and running virtual, but not scheduling yet.

???

Not scheduling?

I thought it was scheduling?

Should I go back to my October 1994 kernel + hacks + Jack's patches
+ my patches to be able to work on kernel reentrancy at this time?
I've been hacking FS code in this envirnment for some time already,
without a lot of problems.

When are you planning on committing your changes for APIC messaging,
etc.?

What can I do to help get scheduling up?  I need multiple kernel
entrances to test conflict resoloution and transitive closure
calculation over the lock hierarchy code I've been pounding on...
is the page containing the shared mutex tagged non-cacheable?  Is
there an allocation method for getting more of these pages, if I
need them?


Re: the NCPU vs. MAXCPU ... the reason I made a distinction is that
you may not want all available CPU's active (I can only think of
testing as wanting this, but it could happen).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.