From owner-freebsd-arch  Wed May 24 12:32:56 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 2E3D337BD3C
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com)
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@[127.0.0.1])
	by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08860;
	Wed, 24 May 2000 13:32:47 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200005241932.NAA08860@berserker.bsdi.com>
To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware 
From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:32:47 -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

}
}It's only necessary if an optimized SMP-aware kernel can't run on a 386
}(due to use pentium-specific instructions) *and* a kernel that runs on
}a 386 is too slow to be usable on an SMP box (due to lack of fast
}pentium-specific instructions).


	Well, "too" is a very interesting word.) Given the
amount of tracing code BSD/OS has been able to leave in with
trivial penalty I suspect that it won't be "too" slow.


Chuck



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message