Messages in this thread |  | | | From | (david parsons) | | Subject | Re: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ????? | | Date | 18 Oct 1998 11:42:20 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.981018023233.20378A-100000@z.ml.org>, Gregory Maxwell <linker@z.ml.org> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Khimenko Victor wrote: >> SMP=1 commented out ? No multicasting with eepro100 ???? What a hell ? SUCH >> RECOMENDATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE for 2.2 kernel! Reason ? 2.2 kernel SHOULD >> work for AT LEAST 99.9% peoples in precompiled binary-only version with all >> needed capabilities !!! > >First off, before you get all hot and bothered: SMP=1 SHOULD BE OFF BY >DEFAULT!. No one SHOULD be running a SMP kernel on a non SMP box! Yes, it >should not lockup.. But it's performance should be less. It should be no >problem for a dist to ship two sets of kernels and modules, and a util to >pick the right one.
Has anyone written such a util (aside from shipping a SMP kernel on the install floppy and having it load a UP kernel if it only finds one processor. This would be a good thing if the processor detection wasn't apparently dependent on the kernel being UP, but as it is you've got a wonderful choice between processor detection and MP detection)?
>You shouldn't be using APM with a SMP kernel.
Why not? With wake-on-lan and other spiffy perversions, it seems perfectly reasonable that a SMP kernel should be able to deal with APM. Sure, most of the reason for having APM is so that laptops can be frugal, but am I the only one who uses a SMP machine for my local router (99.9% idle...) ?
____ david parsons \bi/ Too many machines lying around the office. \/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |