Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jmonroy From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) Subject: Re: dual procesor motherboards the way forward? Message-ID: <jmonroyCxG2DA.1xA@netcom.com> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <Cww6x9.1A0@gnome.co.uk> <36hous$fdv@exile.oec.com> <jmonroyCx10rt.4FF@netcom.com> <36q1jn$4f7@u.cc.utah.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 06:36:46 GMT Lines: 25 Terry Lambert (terry@cs.weber.edu) wrote: : In article <jmonroyCx10rt.4FF@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes: : [ ... discussion of MACH 3.0 for SMP ... ] : ] I disagree with both your premises. : ] I beleive, first, that the Mach kernel "model" is : ] inefficent and is not a good choice for SMP. : I'd agree with this statement, but it's misleading in the extreme. The main : problem with the MACH model is in multiply crossing protection domains to : implement kernel sevices, and it is getting to the point where this is no : longer necessary (using page anonymity protection schemes in a 64 bit : address space). : I don't have time to follow up on this right now, but -Terry- you have some valid points. I'm mailing myself a copy of this thread (discussiong) and will post my reply when I get more time. -- Jesus Monroy Jr jmonroy@netcom.com Zebra Research /386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation ___________________________________________________________________________