From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: andrew.grover@intel.com
Cc: riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, _deepfire@mail.ru
Subject: Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 18:51:23 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010904.185123.26276785.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4148FEAAD879D311AC5700A0C969E89006CDE0E2@orsmsx35.jf.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4148FEAAD879D311AC5700A0C969E89006CDE0E2@orsmsx35.jf.intel.com>
From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:52:17 -0700
I'm not advocating anything similar for Linux, I'm just saying it's an
interesting thought experiment - what if the SMP-ness of a machine was
abstracted from the kernel proper? How much of the kernel really cares, or
really *should* care about SMP/UP?
Every spinlock :-) You'd have to either accept their overhead, or have
some way to nop out the instructions on uniprocessor boots. There
would still be the space overhead after such code patching.
I remember the Digital UNIX folks did something interesting in this
area. There should be a paper online somewhere.
Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-05 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-04 21:52 lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress Grover, Andrew
2001-09-05 1:51 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2001-09-05 8:03 ` Helge Hafting
2001-09-05 14:26 ` Horst von Brand
2001-09-11 22:48 ` Pavel Machek
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-05 21:18 Grover, Andrew
2001-09-05 22:11 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-05 22:13 ` Tim Hockin
2001-09-01 14:55 Samium Gromoff
2001-09-01 12:03 ` Peter Wächtler
2001-09-01 12:39 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-01 14:10 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-31 21:49 Grover, Andrew
2001-08-31 22:40 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-08-31 22:50 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-01 15:50 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-09-08 17:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2001-09-08 18:55 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010904.185123.26276785.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=_deepfire@mail.ru \
--cc=andrew.grover@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox