lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectCompatible with i386/UP but optimised for i686/SMP [was Re: test_and_set_bit() not atomic forever?]
On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 09:27:00AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >The point was that lots of people are running SMP kernels on UP machines,
> >where it's gratuitous overhead.
>
> Then they shouldn't do that.

Unless they're a distributor who wants to run one kernel per
architecture, + modules.

Or a sysadmin, in a situation where managing different kernels for that
extra bit of efficiency isn't worth the administrative overhead.

These points apply also to the i386/i486/i586/i686 optimisation issue.
Is it worth making a kernel nearly optimised for i686 but compatible
with i386? (Perhaps using fixups in the same way to blank out calls to
do the "verify put_user" type stuff, vs. blanking out flush_tlb and so
forth?)

-- Jamie


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.064 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site