From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Jan  8 10:34:32 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3D81569D
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Jan 2000 10:34:29 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from aron@cs.rice.edu)
Received: (from aron@localhost)
	by cs.rice.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) id MAA14332;
	Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:34:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Mohit Aron <aron@cs.rice.edu>
Message-Id: <200001081834.MAA14332@cs.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: performance of FreeBSD-current as SMP
To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:34:24 -0600 (CST)
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200001081832.NAA51499@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Jan 8, 2000 01:32:34 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


> 
> 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.
> 


Well, some difference is to be expected. But 22%  ????



- Mohit


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message