From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:23:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:23:23 -0400 Received: from [145.254.148.183] ([145.254.148.183]:27152 "EHLO picklock.adams.family") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:23:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3B90CE7E.F4F54D9@loewe-komp.de> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 14:03:10 +0200 From: Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=E4chtler?= Organization: B16 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7 i686) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Samium Gromoff <_deepfire@mail.ru> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: lilo vs other OS bootloaders was: FreeBSD makes progress In-Reply-To: <200109011455.f81Ethw00685@vegae.deep.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Samium Gromoff wrote: > > ANdreas Dilger wrote: > > Win2K even abstracts all SMP/UP code into a module (the HAL) and loads this > > at boot, thus using the same kernel for both. > the only possibility of this shows how ugly is SMP in win2k... > this is a situation where they are or geniuses or idiots. > MS never proved to be geniuses so they still are idiots... > Did someone any benchmarking? I expect the loss of performance per application a none issue. What do you think: >0.5%? Are you considering interrupt latency in the first place? Then obviously BeOS is also engineered from idiots... Oh, and QNX/RTP has separate kernels for UP/SMP. And they don't need UP/SMP versions of "modules".