Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:37:21 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ithread preemption Message-ID: <3D7806D1.C87A9A6A@mindspring.com> References: <15735.47204.905352.900631@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <XFMail.20020905160700.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <15735.47756.501169.199225@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Gallatin wrote: > John Baldwin writes: > > Solaris doesn't run on alpha, but it also a bit different in its approach. > > I do wonder if there is a way we can violate an assumption in PAL due to > > migration though. That is, a thread could return to PAL on a different > > CPU than the one the interrupt was originally sent to. This might explain > > why only SMP has problems. > > > > Hey ... I think you have it on the nose! That makes the most sense > I've heard yet. > > Do we have any way to bind a thread to a cpu? Alfred has some patches. IMO, threads should not be so bound to a CPU, as a migration event should be an exception, rather than the rule, and always handled by the scheduler. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7806D1.C87A9A6A>