Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:03:57 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: sef@kithrup.com, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unix/NT synchronization model (was: SMP progress?) Message-ID: <199606050003.RAA27752@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199606042324.QAA00541@Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Jun 4, 96 04:24:35 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Okay, so that's an extremely short-ranged goal ;). But I don't expect true > >symmetric MP to be happening for quite some time yet -- there's just too > >much that would have to be changed. (Locks around nearly every structure > >reference in the kernel, for example.) > > What do you mean by "true symmetric MP"? The current stuff is "true SMP". > Just because it is coarse-grained, doesn't mean it isn't SMP. I was under the impression that the current code did not run the APIC's in virtual wire mode -- correct me if I'm wrong, since I haven't paid particular attention to that area in the last week or so; I've been flying all over. 8-(. That means that there is a preferred processor for taking interrupts, specifically the BP (boot processor) and that AP's (Application Processors) can't deal with them yet. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606050003.RAA27752>