Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:01:56 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>, FreeBSD <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: epoch(9) background information? Message-ID: <5B7E7804.4030907@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <3bfedcc3-0dae-7979-2bd4-da83f2c67e87@embedded-brains.de> References: <db397431-2c4c-64de-634a-20f38ce6a60e@embedded-brains.de> <3bfedcc3-0dae-7979-2bd4-da83f2c67e87@embedded-brains.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23.08.2018 15:39, Sebastian Huber wrote: > We used the FreeBSD network stack also on low-end targets > (uni-processor) such as MCF548x ColdFire, Atmel SAM V71, SPARC LEON, > etc. in current production environments (not legacy systems). The > introduction of lock-free data structures (Concurrency Kit) and this > epoch memory reclamation makes little sense on these targets (at least > from my point of view). However, FreeBSD has still the SMP configuration > option (sys/conf/options) which suggests that SMP is optional. Is a > uni-processor system something which is considered by the FreeBSD > community as a thing worth supporting or can I expect that this is an > exotic environment which will get less and less well supported in the > future? I just need some guidance so that I can better plan for future > FreeBSD baseline updates. FreeBSD as virtualized uniprocessor guest should be supported at full scale, as well as embedded applications using single core x86 and non-x86 CPUs. Just my 2 cents.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5B7E7804.4030907>