From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 2 19:27:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D0416A4CE for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 19:27:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75ADE43D3F for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 19:27:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 32599 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 19:20:05 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 2 Jul 2004 19:20:05 -0000 Received: from 131.106.56.214 (p58.n-nypop02.stsn.com [199.106.89.58]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i62JJsvo034485; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:20:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: "Kevin A. Pieckiel" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:21:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <20040604075905.3422.qmail@web16905.mail.tpe.yahoo.com> <200406041450.24062.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20040702173325.GA602@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> In-Reply-To: <20040702173325.GA602@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407021521.06272.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD support in SMP platform X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:27:21 -0000 On Friday 02 July 2004 01:33 pm, Kevin A. Pieckiel wrote: > 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? The fix is not really complicated so much as largely mechanical and time consuming. It also doesn't seem to kick in until at least 8 logical processors or so. However, I don't think the fix will be very long in coming anyway. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org