Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 21:54:19 -0400 From: "m m" <needacoder@gmail.com> To: kmacy@fsmware.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD is now self-hosting on the UltraSPARC T1 Message-ID: <1e4841eb0605211854i44c4aa4cm9dfc72506c2232ea@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/21/06, Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't find the original e-mail, but someone was suggesting I post a > dmesg to link to. > > http://www.fsmware.com/sun4v/dmesg_latest.txt ... FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 32 CPUs ... SMP: AP CPU #31 Launched! SMP: AP CPU #30 Launched! SMP: AP CPU #29 Launched! SMP: AP CPU #28 Launched! ... Some phylosophical questions - is this machine really an SMP? Can we have an "SMP" when there's only one chip? (it's CMT/CMP, isn't it?) Can we perhaps stop calling any MP an "SMP" one of these days? While on topic, the Opterons aren't SMP either, and neither are the ht-Xeons... but we somehow keep lumping them into the "SMP" category. Maybe we should fix this once and for all? Won't it be weird to write page-allocation code for NUMA machines and put the code into an SMP directory? What about coloring algorithms on the T1000 to improve locality in it's funky cache hierarchy, are we going to put that under "SMP" category too? Who was it that decided that all the world that has more than core is an SMP? (please pardon the format of this mail - but I really only have questions, no answers...)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1e4841eb0605211854i44c4aa4cm9dfc72506c2232ea>