Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:39:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Albrecht <bruce@zuhause.mn.org> To: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP differences between -stable and -current (RE: wine and SMP) Message-ID: <14268.41927.8972.298219@celery.zuhause.org> In-Reply-To: <64003B21ECCAD11185C500805F31EC0303786DA1@houston.matchlogic.com> References: <64003B21ECCAD11185C500805F31EC0303786DA1@houston.matchlogic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I could be wrong, but I think all of them apply. I think there were a few things that were moved out of the Big Kernel Lock, and some people have been playing around with processor affinity lately. However, when these things are fixed in -current (I believe fixing these things are all goals for 4.0), they probably won't be back-ported to -stable. Charles Randall writes: > Which of those limitations also apply to -current? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Albrecht [mailto:bruce@zuhause.mn.org] > ... > Even though SMP is supported in -stable, you must recognize that it's > a fairly weak implementation. For the most part, there's only one > kernel lock, so in general, you can't have more than one CPU doing > kernel stuff, even though the two kernel requests (for example, two > separate disk controllers, or two NICs) are independent of each other. > There's no processor affinity. A threaded process can't have multiple > threads running simultaneously on multiple CPUs. I'm sure there are > other deficiencies I've left out. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14268.41927.8972.298219>