From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 24 11:29:43 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 3158C37B6A2 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:29:36 -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 MAA07732; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:29:29 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200005241829.MAA07732@berserker.bsdi.com> To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware From: Chuck Paterson Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:29:28 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG }Err... But I wasn't advocating removing the locks. I was suggesting }having the routine patch in the correct locking code (or calls }thereto) based on the processor type at the first invocation of each }mutex. This way we could have a GENERIC kernel with the correct }locking code for both 3/486 and modern x86 processors compiled in }without the overhead of doing the processor type check on every call. } }Sorry if I wasn't clear.. } }Drew I am on a conference call and was also thinking about other mail. You were probably clear. Yes, this can be done. We did consider this for BSD/OS and I forgot about it. It is actually a very legitimate way to solve the problem. Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message