Reducing the need to compile a custom kernel

Jeremy Chadwick freebsd at
Mon Feb 13 15:42:47 UTC 2012

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:05:41PM +0200, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >I want to note here: the pf ALTQ options are a pain in the butt, quite
> >honestly.  I've found in the past that removing the ones you don't use
> >won't result in a successful build, thus one must include them all.  We
> >do need ALTQ support though, for rate-limiting capability.  The NOPCC
> >option is needed for SMP builds, which makes me wonder what the state of
> >SMP is in this regard -- meaning, on non-SMP builds, is it still safe
> >to include ALTQ_NOPCC?
> It seems like I'm missing something. What is good about using
> non-SMP kernel?

Nothing.  It's a question of whether or not use of ALTQ_NOPCC causes
breakage on non-SMP kernels, or if FreeBSD even bothers to support
non-SMP at this point.  "Non-SMP" means "without options SMP".

Rephrased: if SMP is the default, and "options SMP" works just fine on
systems without multiple processors/cores, then the ALTQ_NOPCC option
should probably be removed.

| Jeremy Chadwick                                 jdc at |
| Parodius Networking            |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                 Mountain View, CA, US |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.             PGP 4BD6C0CB |

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list