From owner-freebsd-smp Tue Sep 12 8: 7:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from gidora.zeta.org.au (gidora.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EC9137B424 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24516 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2000 15:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bde.zeta.org.au) (203.2.228.102) by gidora.zeta.org.au with SMTP; 12 Sep 2000 15:07:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:07:47 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: system initialization order. In-Reply-To: <78946.968769061@critter> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > With SMPng I think we need to take a good hard stare at the > order in which we initialize the system, a lot of the reasons > behind the current order are invalid, and some new reasons for > a new order are not honoured. > > Roughly speaking, I think we need something like this order: > > init console > print copyright > initialize VM/malloc(9) > init other stuff needed for: > setup proc0 > setup proc1 (park it on a semaphore for now) > setup idle procs > enable scheduler > init hardclock > enable hardclock interrupt Should be softclock (scheduler doesn't use hardclock). > initialize timecounters > > This should now represent a sufficiently "normal" environment that > the order of the rest doesn't really matter very much: I think this mainly moves clock initialization earlier. OK with me. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message