Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:31:22 +0700 From: Bachilo Dmitry <root@solink.ru> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD is now self-hosting on the UltraSPARC T1 Message-ID: <200605221031.23050.root@solink.ru> In-Reply-To: <1e4841eb0605211854i44c4aa4cm9dfc72506c2232ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <1e4841eb0605211854i44c4aa4cm9dfc72506c2232ea@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=F7 =D3=CF=CF=C2=DD=C5=CE=C9=C9 =CF=D4 =F0=CF=CE=C5=C4=C5=CC=D8=CE=C9=CB 22= =CD=C1=D1 2006 08:54 m m =CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC(a): > On 5/21/06, Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com> wrote: > > I can't find the original e-mail, but someone was suggesting I post a > > dmesg to link to. > > > > http://www.fsmware.com/sun4v/dmesg_latest.txt > > ... > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 32 CPUs > ... > SMP: AP CPU #31 Launched! > SMP: AP CPU #30 Launched! > SMP: AP CPU #29 Launched! > SMP: AP CPU #28 Launched! > ... > > Some phylosophical questions - is this machine really an SMP? Can we > have an "SMP" when there's only one chip? (it's CMT/CMP, isn't it?) > Can we perhaps stop calling any MP an "SMP" one of these days? While > on topic, the Opterons aren't SMP either, and neither are the > ht-Xeons... but we somehow keep lumping them into the "SMP" category. > Maybe we should fix this once and for all? Won't it be weird to > write page-allocation code for NUMA machines and put the code into an > SMP directory? What about coloring algorithms on the T1000 to improve > locality in it's funky cache hierarchy, are we going to put that under > "SMP" category too? Who was it that decided that all the world that > has more than core is an SMP? > > (please pardon the format of this mail - but I really only have > questions, no answers...) Well, this is 8-core processor, so it is pretty an SMP system, made to have= =20 cheeper multiprocessing then what we call "real" multiprocessor system does= =2E=20 Sun says that it is much wiser to place more cores then to populate PUs and= =20 they themselves call Niagara-powered (UltraSPARC T1) systems a 32-processor= =20 systems. So why not call it SMP? We say SMP when we want to say that there= =20 are many processing devices (cores), noone say that there must be many CPUs= =20 on the mainboard. On the other hand, thread and HT is not a physical core, = so=20 here I should agree - it's not SMP, it's stupid HT or great multithreading= =20 T1. Nevertheless I am shure that noone want to break the tradition or rewrite t= he=20 system just to forget this term.... =2D----------------------- =F3 =D5=D7=C1=D6=C5=CE=C9=C5=CD, =E2=C1=DE=C9=CC=CF =E4=CD=C9=D4=D2=C9=CA =F2=D5=CB=CF=D7=CF=C4=C9=D4=C5=CC=D8 =CF=D4=C4=C5=CC=C1 =D3=C9=D3=D4=C5=CD= =CE=CF=CA =C9=CE=D4=C5=C7=D2=C1=C3=C9=C9 =EF=EF=EF "=EB=CF=CD=D0=C1=CE=C9=D1 =F3=CF=EC=C9=CE=CB"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605221031.23050.root>