From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 18 17: 2: 7 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from et-gw.etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CD337B423 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by et-gw.etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08424; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:02:21 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:23:33 -0400 To: Alfred Perlstein From: Dennis Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Cc: Kris Kennaway , Rik van Riel , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20010418160941.X976@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418174822.03b13910@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010418131202.03d0a280@mail.etinc.com> <20010418111523.B35813@xor.obsecurity.org> <5.0.2.1.0.20010418174822.03b13910@mail.etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > It seems that there is a lack of foresight here...you're losing a year or > > more of engineering time and before SMPng is stablilized the IA-64 will be > > out and most multiprocessor applications will be rushing to move over > to that. > >I know that engaging you in conversation is a futile exercise but >I'd like to point out that we've got our feet in both boats right >now as well as some others that you don't mention. >Ia64 is nearly working, we are taking the platform quite seriously. > >You think Intel isn't going to market dual/quad ia64 machines? Yes, but who'll need them? You say that "engaging me" is useless, yet you dont make a point that has anything to do with what i said. My question is, Is it worth it to tear apart the FreeBSD internals and to significantly adulterate the kernel proper with SMP-specifics to sqeeze some extra performance in the wake of the forthcoming performance boosts seems counterproductive. We dont program in assembler (much), because the extra performance isnt worth the effort. Im not saying that SMP should not be supported, only that making the OS and drivers more cumbersome for a small performance boost may be counterproductive in the long run. Db To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message