Hi,
I said:
> I am guessing that little of the above will be MFC'd into 4.0. So the issue
> of the current SMP patch set should be based on its merits alone. I would
> agree that they in themselves are worthy of MFCing. Lets just not kid
Mike Smith replied:
> Steve Passe actually argued quite eloquently against his own decision;
> the "real work" that actually depends heavily on this foundation is
> almost certainly never going to come back to the 4.x branch. Since these
> changes don't actually bring any real improvements in and of themselves,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> there's little point in merging them for their own sake.
I based my opinion on the belief that they did indeed bring in a performance
benefit (I think I remember the value of 7% being tossed around). I took
those numbers on face value, if correct I stand by my "decision". I didn't
run any
tests with code pre-Matts-changes, so I can't confirm or deny them.
My "decision" is also based purely on the technical merits of the exercise, I
have to admit I never thought much about the issues of stable ABI. Coming
from
where I do, I readily admit I am a poor judge of this issue...
For my post-Matts-changes tests check out:
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/rbenches.html
--
Steve Passe | powered by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
