From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 8 10:32:40 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE8A15228 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 10:32:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA51499; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:32:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:32:34 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200001081832.NAA51499@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Mohit Aron Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: performance of FreeBSD-current as SMP In-Reply-To: <200001081602.KAA11960@cs.rice.edu> References: <20000108134110.B442@cichlids.cichlids.com> <200001081602.KAA11960@cs.rice.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [Not network-related; moved to -current.] < said: > Good Lord! This is the second time now. I even SAID in my last two mails that > there is only ONE processor. Theortically then, FreeBSD configured with/without > SMP support shouldn't make any difference. Yes it should. SMP support enables inter-processor locking code which does not exist in non-SMP kernels. Ergo, non-SMP kernels run uniprocessor tasks faster. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message