From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jan 18 13:26:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (unknown [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF9737B699 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0ILf2Q01268; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:41:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200101182141.f0ILf2Q01268@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Lars Eggert Cc: Jamil Taylor , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP & APM (was Re: SMP & signal 11) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:14:33 PST." <3A675CB9.53261A6E@isi.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:41:02 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Having both the SMP options > > options SMP > options APIC_IO > > and APM > > device apm0 at nexus? # Advanced Power Management > > enabled in a kernel config file causes spurious signal 11's under > FreeBSD-4.2 when more than one CPU is present in the system. > > Is this a known conflict? I could not find this mentioned in related man > pages or LINT. (Thanks to Jamil Taylor for helping me track this down.) It's not supported, no. Having said that, it's theoretically *meant* to work, but I suspect that there are unconsidered issues which mean that APM and SMP just aren't going to mix. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message