Subject: Re: unable to boot with 256MB of RAM
To: Charles M. Hannum <root@ihack.net>
From: David Maxwell <david@fundy.ca>
List: port-sparc
Date: 11/23/1999 15:10:33
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 01:44:59AM -0500, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> David Maxwell <david@fundy.ca> writes:
> > Every comment I've seen on the subject said 2.0 == SMP
> 
> Really?  Every comment I've seen on the subject from a reputable
> source indicated that there was no plan to change the version
> numbering -- which would mean the next release after 1.5 would be 1.6.

As Ken said, I haven't heard any comments specifically in a while.
Here are some of the comments I've seen that helped me think that way...

(Apologies in advance for misattribution, missed messages, people
who didn't want others reminded of these comments....)

Perhaps all of this is fallout from Jason Thorpe's comments at USENIX.
No one has said anything contradictory until now however.

Every 'reputable source' must have commented on a list I'm not subscribed to,
or don't have access to.

						David


> > "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> > > There is already a fully funded project that is working on
> > > multithreading our kernel, so there isn't really much cause to port
> > > the FreeBSD code.
> 
>  Andrew Gillham <gillhaa@ghost.whirlpool.com> wrote:
> 
>  > If there really is a fully funded project for SMP, why is it not mentioned
>  > anywhere?  Personally I would love to have SMP for NetBSD, I will go
>  > out and buy an SMP motherboard as soon as alpha test code is available.
> 
> Because, perhaps, the organization does not wish to make it public yet?
> 
> Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
> 
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.01.9808311608520.5190-100000@alpine.unicast.com>
> Well, I don't know much about the formal plans for SMP under NetBSD, but
> at Jason Thorpe's presentation on NetBSD at USENIX this year, he
> mentioned the following points:
> 
> 	* Work is fully under way to get SMP going under NetBSD.
>           presumably this is the `Well funded project' mentioned
>           above.
> 
>         * The current goal is to get a multi-threaded kernel going
>           first, and then allow scheduling of kernel and user
>           space threads across multiple processors.  Specific
>           mention was made of the fact that the FreeBSD project
>           took approximately the opposite approach, and is running
>           into trouble trying to integrate a multi-threaded kernel
>           into thir SMP work.
> 
> 
>       * The NetBSD-2.0 version mark has been reserved for the first
>           formal release with a multi-threaded kernel and SMP.
>                                 Jim Wise
>                                 jwise@unicast.com
> 
> > I heard once rumors of a funded SMP project, did anything come of that?
> > Was I misled?
> 
> The project is still running. You may have noticed a bunch of multi-processor
> related commits to the kernel sources lately, which *may* be related.
> 
> Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
> 
> 
> From: "John F. Woods" <jfw@jfwhome.funhouse.com>
> I seem to vaguely recall suggestions that SMP would be a good candidate for
> a major enough change to warrant calling it 2.0.
> 
> Of course, I'm not a member of core, and don't even play one on TV.  I also
> don't have every current-users message for the past 8 years memorized, so
> I could be way, WAY off.
> 
> 
> From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
> Nobody knows what will trigger the fabled major version bump, because
> nobody's made that decision.  There's some speculation that a
> preemptible kernel with SMP support is the critical change.
> 
> 
> From: Bill Studenmund <skippy@macro.Stanford.EDU>
> I believe that SMP will be the big new feature of 2.X.
> 
> From: Colin Wood <cwood@ichips.intel.com>
> not really.  there has been some mention that kernel threads/smp support
> will be the needed catalyst for the 2.0 version bump.
> 
> From: Calvin Vette <cvette@borders.com>
> This is actually a question for tech-kern. The timetable for threads/SMP
> isn't currently public.
> 
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
> > 1.  Just curious, what's going on with the SMP stuff?
> I honestly don't know. Its in the hands of people who don't talk much
> about what they are doing.
> 
> From: christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:05:49 -0400
> Since there have been a lot of questions lately about SMP and there
> is currently some kernel hacking activity related to SMP, I thought
> that it was appropriate to create a forum for SMP related discussions.
> 
> From: Stefan Grefen <grefen@hprc.tandem.com>
> Subject: port-i386/6928: i386 SMP
>        Bootstrap suuport for SMP system based on intel MP spec