Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:17:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com> To: bruce@zuhause.mn.org, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP differences between -stable and -current (RE: wine and SMP) Message-ID: <199908202117.RAA16594@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
next 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. > A threaded process *can* have multiple threads simultaneously on multiple CPUs in -current, and I'm getting close on moving interrupt handling out of GKL, that is, allowing multiple interrupts be serviced simultaneously. -lq 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?199908202117.RAA16594>