From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 7 16:16:00 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org 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 CCE2516A41F for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:16:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: from mailomat.net (mailomat.net [217.110.117.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFBA43D53 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:15:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) X-BNC-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Received: from [194.39.192.125] (account bnc-mail@mailrelay.mailomat.net HELO bnc.net) by mailomat.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6) with ESMTPSA id 5828636; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:15:54 +0100 Received: from [194.39.192.154] (account ap HELO [194.39.192.154]) by bnc.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTPSA id 1342063; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:15:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Achim Patzner Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:15:55 +0100 To: Ollivier Robert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:16:00 -0000 Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: > According to Steven Hartland: >> I believe previously smp support in FreeBSD has been limited >> to smaller numbers of CPU's, we've got the opportunity to test >> an 8 way dual core ( 16 cpu's ) this week, is 6.0 up to this? > > I recall seeing someone on IRC saying they had a 14 CPU machine > (Sparc64 > E4500) to play with so I think it should be ok. I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... Achim