On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP
machine ?
I first thought of things like:
- performence (most likely not worth the discussion ?)
- additional locking problematic ?
- ... ?
Or asked the other way round: why
Thierry Herbelot:
Le Thursday 01 April 2004 09:10, Bjoern A. Zeeb a écrit :
what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP
machine ?
I first thought of things like:
- performence (most likely not worth the discussion ?)
I got an improvement with a factor of ten between an
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Thierry Herbelot wrote:
Le Thursday 01 April 2004 09:10, Bjoern A. Zeeb a écrit :
Hi,
what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP
machine ?
I first thought of things like:
- performence (most likely not worth the discussion ?)
I got an
At 08:10 01/04/2004, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP
machine ?
I first thought of things like:
- performence (most likely not worth the discussion ?)
At least in 5.2-RELEASE, there is a significant performance
delta; buildworld takes
hello,
what about SMP enabled kernel on Intel P4 with HT technology ?
I have one but I didn't had the chance to test it yet.
Colin Percival wrote:
At 08:10 01/04/2004, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP
machine ?
I first thought of things
Hi,
what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP
machine ?
I first thought of things like:
- performence (most likely not worth the discussion ?)
- additional locking problematic ?
- ... ?
Or asked the other way round: why would I want to disable SMP on a
kernel that is
6 matches
Mail list logo