From owner-cvs-all Fri Jan 24 1: 7:17 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 7A0EA37B405 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from scribble.fsn.hu (scribble.fsn.hu [193.224.40.95]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC2BF43F3F for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:07:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bra@fsn.hu) Received: (qmail 24978 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Jan 2003 09:07:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Jan 2003 09:07:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:07:01 +0100 (CET) From: Attila Nagy To: Nate Lawson Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, "" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c initcpu.c locore.s In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Hello, > The patch merely enables an Auxiliary Processor on equipment that > supports HTT. Thus, 4.x still has all its original SMP weaknesses that > will lead people (eventually) to 5.x including the fact that only one > process can be active in the kernel at a time. And what about performance? I mean those "Auxiliary Processors" are "weaker" than the real ones, so scheduling CPU intensive processes to them makes a weird assymmetry. In average for example with a dnetc client what's better? :) Running two processes with HT turned off, or running four of them with HT on? Just curious, I do not have a HT capable machine... ----------[ Free Software ISOs - http://www.fsn.hu/?f=download ]---------- Attila Nagy e-mail: Attila.Nagy@fsn.hu Free Software Network (FSN.HU) phone @work: +361 210 1415 (194) cell.: +3630 306 6758 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message