Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:36:37 -0600 From: Steve Passe <smp@timing.com> To: Matthew Fuller <fullermd@linkfast.net> Cc: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <200005242136.PAA21433@RoadRunner.timing.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:40 CDT." <20000524161040.Z660@linkfast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0600, a little birdie told me > that Steve Passe remarked > > > > We would have no need for SMP on 486 or 586, however losing UP on 486 > > would be a problem. > > Just as a side point (a fair bit of this discussion is over my head, so > I'm not sure if this is really relevant or not, but...), I would dispute > the second half of the first part above. > > While SMP on 586 is certainly not mainstream, I'm sure I'm far from the > only one with a multi-proc 586 machine. It'd be quite a shame to abandon > that market without at least more looking into the problems that would be > faced in supporting it. I should have been clearer, when I said "we" in my last posting, I meant "Timing Solutions", NOT FreeBSD. That's the trouble with wearing multiple hats! -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@timing.com | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005242136.PAA21433>