From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 24 10:28:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D988137B743 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:28:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com) Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07094; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:28:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200005241728.LAA07094@berserker.bsdi.com> To: Matthew Dillon Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware From: Chuck Paterson Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:28:39 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG } Nobody is advocating scrapping the 386 for UP kernels. Even when/if } the kernel becomes threaded, it still probably will not be preemptive } but even if it were we are not going to be throwing cmpexg instructions } in mainline *UP* code. If some of the imported code happens to do that, } it's trivial to fix with #ifdef's for 386/486 support. This is actually not true (the nobody part). I'm afraid I have no idea how to do a preemptive kernel where it doesn't diverge so greatly that it won't be effectively a totally separate kernel. I think if FreeBSD is not willing to bite the bullet on going to the preemptive kernel then it just shouldn't get done. Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message