Re: Compatible with i386/UP but optimised for i686/SMP [was Re: test_and_set_bit() not atomic foreve

Philip Blundell (pb@nexus.co.uk)
Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:30:57 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: ganesh@cse.iitb.ernet.in: "2.0.x GPF"
Previous message: David B. Rees: "Oops. while running wine."

In message <19980601115448.35720@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>, Jamie Lokier writes
:
>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.

It's not that hard to make two kernels per architecture rather than one. I
think this is a far better solution than trying to get rid of SMP at run time.

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

Next message: ganesh@cse.iitb.ernet.in: "2.0.x GPF"
Previous message: David B. Rees: "Oops. while running wine."