From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Apr 23 11: 5:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB99154A4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu) Received: from nonpc.cs.rice.edu (nonpc.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.219]) by cs.rice.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA27395; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:02:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from alc@localhost) by nonpc.cs.rice.edu (8.9.2/8.7.3) id NAA05831; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:02:47 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:02:47 -0500 From: Alan Cox To: Steve Kargl Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Luoqi's patch status Message-ID: <19990423130247.A5317@nonpc.cs.rice.edu> References: <199904231744.KAA54441@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199904231744.KAA54441@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>; from Steve Kargl on Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 10:44:20AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > What is the status of Luoqi's smp patches? Is this the > direction that smp on FreeBSD is going, and are these patches > slated for inclusion in source tree? > After considerable discussion of the trade-offs and alternatives among John, David, Bruce, Luoqi (of course), Julian and myself, the consensus was to proceed with Luoqi's %fs-based SMP patch. The downside of this approach is that it increases the null syscall cost by about 8%. Otherwise, the decision would have been a no-brainer. Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message