From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <74a45e49e13d8e3ffbb691bd8322a00c@collyer.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Van Jacobsen's network stack restructure
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:20:53 -0800
From: geoff@collyer.net
In-Reply-To: <9ce0e857a1fea84744d006f22b239b6b@vitanuova.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fa7d7048-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> (BTW, can plan 9 actually use multi-core processors?)

In principle, yes, since they are just shared-memory multiprocessors
packaged more compactly than previously.

Having said that, I don't know if Intel and AMD did the obvious thing
and just populated the MP table appropriately or whether they felt
compelled to gratuitously do things differently because the word
`core' is spelled differently than the word `processor', thus
necessitating at least minor kernel changes.  Given Intel's past
behaviour, I'm pessimistic.