[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090108151046.GK18120@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:10:46 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Adam Osuchowski <adwol@...k.pl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Is 386 processor still supported?
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Hmm. Where in Kconfig is SMP for M386 not allowed?
> >
> > Dunno, kconfig is too much of a jungle for a simple person like me ;-)
> >
> > But afaik i386 (and possibly i486) don't support nearly enough for a
> > modern SMP system.
> >
> > Alan used to have i486-smp I think, one of the very few ever made.
>
> The first systems that supported the Intel MP standard are 486 based
> with external APIC. The prior systems used various proprietary MP
> interfaces from the simple stuff in the Compaq (which Linux doesn't
> support as Compaq refused to allow Thomas Radke to contribute it) to the
> fairly extreme end of things with the Sequent boxes.
>
> In addition our FPU emulation and some of our handling for x86
> processors where we have to do the WP bit in software is also not SMP
> safe.
>
> So our minimal spec for SMP is probably 486DX + external Intel APIC.
>
> In practice I doubt there is a single Intel APIC type 486 SMP box on the
> planet running Linux (or quite possibly running at all)
yeah, that's very likely true. I think we could eliminate some of the SMP
complications by requiring cmpxchg presence for CONFIG_SMP, agreed?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists