It is an accepted rule of thumb that due to the InterProcessCommunication "friction" required to synchronize tasks across [CPU]s, each additional [CPU] contributes about 1/6 less performance than the previous one. As a result, fitting more than four [CPU]s in a machine tends to cost heaps of money with surprisingly little to show for it. 

  

 On the OperatingSystem level, there is a wide span for the degree of symmetry expressed. On a fully symmetric system, any [CPU] may run any userland process, any kernel process, and any interrupt handler. This is rare in practice due to limitations in various platforms -- most of the time, the interrupt handler can only be run by the first [CPU]. In simpler [OperatingSystem]s, this is also the only [CPU] that may kernel tasks. In yet simpler system designs, even user processes are assigned to a fixed [CPU] and cannot move among [CPU]s. 

  

 In practice, a less symmetric system OperatingSystem design may not be a drawback. It is desirable to tie processes to a certain [CPU] as long the system load is evenly distributed among [CPU]s, because this maximizes the efficiency of [CPU] caches. Even in a completely symmetric system, an intelligently written scheduler will take this into account and try not to shuffle tasks around needlessly.