From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 05:36:23 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54E016A412; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:36:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6584243C9F; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:34:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kBE5H47K018645; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:17:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4580DE4E.3080008@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:17:02 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mjacob@freebsd.org References: <200612140357.kBE3vY0Q053458@repoman.freebsd.org> <4580CD6A.5090802@samsco.org> <20061213201031.T26658@ns1.feral.com> <4580D3BB.7060504@samsco.org> <20061213210116.P26879@ns1.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <20061213210116.P26879@ns1.feral.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, "David E. O'Brien" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:36:23 -0000 mjacob@freebsd.org wrote: > >> There wasn't a full switchover to SMP at 6.0 because an SMP kernel on a >> UP system incurs a measurable runtime overhead, and we wanted to present >> a system that showed the best of FreeBSD to people who wanted to run it > > But David's point is that most AMD64 boxes *are* SMP, not UP. Is that > wrong? 1. There are plenty of single core Opterons and Athlon64 chips still in service. Maybe AMD sells more SMP systems now than UP systems, but their prior sales of UP systems didn't magically disappear overnight. 2. The decision was made in spring of 2005, before dual core chips were widely used. While we knew that such chips would be available, we wanted to have consistency for the transition. 3. This change, had it not been reverted, would have broken the consistency in the major release stream that we were trying to achieve. You spell it 'POLA', I spell it 'consistent'. Either way, I think that we both have a deep concern and appreciation for doing the right thing and not pissing people off with surprises. 4. When 7.0 is released in 2007, the transition will be complete. Scott