Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:33:25 -0400 From: "Kevin A. Pieckiel" <pieckiel+freebsd-questions@sdf.lonestar.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD support in SMP platform Message-ID: <20040702173325.GA602@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> In-Reply-To: <200406041450.24062.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040604075905.3422.qmail@web16905.mail.tpe.yahoo.com> <200406041146.01095.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <40C0ABFC.1060107@cronyx.ru> <200406041450.24062.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:50:24PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > 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. Obviously, this isn't considered a show stopper bug by the developers, but it does seem to be quite an egregious error IMO. Afterall, multi-processor systems seem to be getting more commonplace, and especially with HTT getting its share of the market, I would think that in not too many years a system showing eight or more processors--virtual or otherwise--would be not unheard of. Why is fixing this such a low priority? Is it a complicated fix, or simply a lack of hardware for testing? NOTICE: I'm not asking this to blame, hound, or point fingers! I'm just curious. I'm not trying to be critical of anyone or the priorities set by developers. Please don't take this as an offensive comment. It's purely asked in the interest of curiosity.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040702173325.GA602>