From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 4 11:49:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A3416A4CE for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151BA43D41 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:49:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 15515 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2004 18:49:41 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 4 Jun 2004 18:49:41 -0000 Received: from 10.50.41.233 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i54Incmp082957; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:50:24 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <20040604075905.3422.qmail@web16905.mail.tpe.yahoo.com> <200406041146.01095.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <40C0ABFC.1060107@cronyx.ru> In-Reply-To: <40C0ABFC.1060107@cronyx.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406041450.24062.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: twibmtc@yahoo.com.tw cc: Roman Kurakin Subject: Re: FreeBSD support in SMP platform X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:49:51 -0000 On Friday 04 June 2004 01:06 pm, Roman Kurakin wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >[...] > >FreeBSD will see and support up to 16 CPUs, but it won't be very stable on > >probably more than 4 or 6. > > What is the reason? When a thread is made runnable the idle CPUs contest on sched_lock so much that invariable one CPU ends up timing out on sched_lock and panic'ing. This will be fixed eventually but not in the near future. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org