From owner-cvs-all Thu Jan 23 14:43:37 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B21E37B401; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:43:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.2.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367AE43F13; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:43:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h0NMhFVG097828; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:43:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030123213408.2B94A2A8A5@canning.wemm.org> References: <20030123213408.2B94A2A8A5@canning.wemm.org> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:43:14 -0500 To: Peter Wemm , John Baldwin From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c initcpu.c locore.s Cc: Paul Richards , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > Is it a good idea to do this in 4? >> >> The simple HT support is a very small patch (see > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/htt.patch) and is > > something that several people/companies that use 4.x need. > > > > > We should stop moving new features into 4 for 2 reasons, > > > a) I've always been against feature development of -stable, > > > but b) we need to encourage take-up of our latest branch > > > and the less "modern" 4 is the more likely people will be > > > to migrate around 5.2. The SMP work won't be such a huge > > > draw since so few people have SMP machines. >> > > Most if not all of the new P4's coming out do have HT support > > nowadays. > >Yes, and all the SMP P4 Xeons have it and have had it for a >while. HT isn't exactly new, it has been in production >systems for months. I have lost track of who said what here, but I'm willing to chime in anyway... In general I agree with the reasons given for not moving new features into 4-stable, particularly now that 5.0 is official, but in the case of hyperthreading I don't see that as "a new feature" so much as "support for hardware". If the update to support that hardware is not very risky or disruptive, then I would prefer to see it added to the 4-stable branch. We (RPI) installed a new machine about five months ago, using redhat 7.3 (which is almost 9 months old by now), and rh73 understood hyperthreading. It would be nice if the upcoming freebsd-4.8 could also understand it. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message