From owner-freebsd-arch Thu May 25 4:39:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B011837BE26; Thu, 25 May 2000 04:39:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA49930; Thu, 25 May 2000 13:38:52 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:38:52 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Mike Smith Cc: Terry Lambert , Chuck Paterson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware In-Reply-To: <200005250127.SAA03314@mass.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 24 May 2000, Mike Smith wrote: > > I think the work required to build two kernels instead of one, and > > then CPU-testing in the loader to pick one, is really trivial. I > > think there are better approaches to the problem than this, but > > this is enough to throw out that idea entirely. > > Are the mutexes inlined, or are they all function calls? If the latter, > loading lock_smp.ko vs. lock_std.ko would be pretty trivial... 8) > or even lock_i386.ko or lock_i486.ko if the differences in functionality provided by the different processors are that great. Of course, it's not that much help if we call cyrix MMX capable CPUs 486-class cpus. > -- > \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith > \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org > \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message