Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:42:07 +0000 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r242402 - in head/sys: kern vm Message-ID: <CAJ-FndARMhgCRYwo0%2BS4tZ=At6rHJSz_tsy-OtHRHZKkxL-sig@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121101100814.GB70741@FreeBSD.org> References: <201210311807.q9VI7IcX000993@svn.freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndDRkBS57e9mzZoJWX5ugJ0KBGxhMSO50KB8Wm8MFudjCA@mail.gmail.com> <1351707964.1120.97.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAJ-FndC7QwpNAjzQTumqTY6Sj_RszXPwc0pbHv2-pRGMqbw0ww@mail.gmail.com> <20121101100814.GB70741@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/1/12, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:33:51PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > A> > Doesn't this padding to cache line size only help x86 processors in an > A> > SMP kernel? I was expecting to see some #ifdef SMP so that we don't > pay > A> > a big price for no gain in small-memory ARM systems and such. But > maybe > A> > I'm misunderstanding the reason for the padding. > A> > A> I didn't want to do this because this would be meaning that SMP option > A> may become a completely killer for modules/kernel ABI compatibility. > > Do we support loading non-SMP modules on SMP kernel and vice versa? Actually that's my point, we do. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndARMhgCRYwo0%2BS4tZ=At6rHJSz_tsy-OtHRHZKkxL-sig>