From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 08:02:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2677116A4CE; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:02:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from shaft.techsupport.co.uk (shaft.techsupport.co.uk [212.250.77.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228AF43FA3; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:02:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from setantae@submonkey.net) Received: from cpc2-cdif3-6-0-cust204.cdif.cable.ntl.com ([81.103.67.204] helo=shrike.submonkey.net ident=mailnull) by shaft.techsupport.co.uk with esmtp (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1AGKgK-0008b5-8E; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:02:24 +0000 Received: from setantae by shrike.submonkey.net with local (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1AGKgG-000KMl-Ml; Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:02:20 +0000 Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:02:20 +0000 From: Ceri Davies To: Craig Rodrigues Message-ID: <20031102160220.GK38355@submonkey.net> Mail-Followup-To: Ceri Davies , Craig Rodrigues , freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org References: <20031101032952.GA60416@crodrigues.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="17/8oYur5Y32USnW" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031101032952.GA60416@crodrigues.org> X-PGP: finger ceri@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: Ceri Davies cc: rwatson@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updted SMP web page X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 16:02:27 -0000 --17/8oYur5Y32USnW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:29:52PM -0500, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I thought that the following paper about SMPng > was well written, and should be placed on the FreeBSD > SMP web page. Committed (with some whitespace changes); thanks. Ceri --=20 --17/8oYur5Y32USnW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/pSqMocfcwTS3JF8RAtogAJwKGbB85OzhiJgFCxGQRLkwx+k1EgCgwoqN BPXJKrBm5hl6Qhua/6aX6b0= =Rd1D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --17/8oYur5Y32USnW-- From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 09:28:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD1516A4CF for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 09:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9755843F3F for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 09:28:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA2HQkMg019033; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:26:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)hA2HQkrZ019030; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:26:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:26:46 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Craig Rodrigues In-Reply-To: <20031031235905.GA5491@crodrigues.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Update to SMP web page X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:28:14 -0000 On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > I found about about this paper at http://daily.daemonnews.org . I > thought that this paper was well done, and should be put on the FreeBSD > SMP web page. The paper (for better or for worse) is a rehash of a 2001 paper, and doesn't take a lot of the more recent work into account -- for example, the substantial performance improvements since that time realized through use of UMA, VM system lockdown, migration to a Giant-free storage subsystem, network stack locking, etc. It also omits ongoing research into SMP-optimized scheduling, hyperthreading, et al. So it's a good historical reference to early parts of the SMPng work, but doesn't take into account a lot of the work since that time. We should be careful, when linking to and publicizing this paper, to make sure this is clearly pointed out. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories > > > > > Index: index.sgml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/www/en/smp/index.sgml,v > retrieving revision 1.111 > diff -u -r1.111 index.sgml > --- index.sgml 4 Oct 2003 16:19:43 -0000 1.111 > +++ index.sgml 31 Oct 2003 23:50:11 -0000 > @@ -1789,6 +1789,16 @@ >

    • > > --> > + 30 October 2003 > + > + > 13 January 2002 >
      >
    • > > > > > -- > Craig Rodrigues > http://crodrigues.org > rodrigc@crodrigues.org > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-smp@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 3 15:41:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343CA16A4CF for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F24443F75 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:41:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 2594 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2003 23:41:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Nov 2003 23:41:41 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA3NfHce065545; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:41:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:41:17 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: John Baldwin X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: smp@FreeBSD.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: HEADSUP: Committing new interrupt code, tree will be broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:41:45 -0000 On 03-Nov-2003 John Baldwin wrote: > > On 03-Nov-2003 John Baldwin wrote: >> I'm committing the new i386 interrupt and SMP code, so buckle your >> seat belts. :) I'll be intentionally breaking the kernel build at >> the start and re-enable it with the last commit when I am done. > > I've finished committing everything but am waiting for some kernel > compiles on virgin trees to finish to make sure I didn't miss anything. > The -current waters should be safe again though. My GENERIC build finished ok, so it should at least be workable for most people. By the way, if anyone has a machine with 8 or more CPUs (John Cagle, I know you are out there. :)) feel free to test the new code out and post a boot -v dmesg log to the smp@ list. Thanks. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 4 04:12:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4F816A4CE; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 04:12:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from park.rambler.ru (park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E92E43FF3; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 04:12:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from is@rambler-co.ru) Received: from is.park.rambler.ru (is.park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.102]) by park.rambler.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hA4CCSJ6065831; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:12:29 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from is@rambler-co.ru) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:12:28 +0300 (MSK) From: Igor Sysoev X-Sender: is@is.park.rambler.ru To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: can not boot SMP kernel on GA-8EGXDR-E X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:12:35 -0000 On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Igor Sysoev wrote: > I can not boot SMP kernel on GA-8EGXDR-E motherboard in > Gigabyte GS-SR222E server - it hangs on SCSI disks after CPUs launched: I've just cvsup'ed new APIC code and booted 5.1 SMP kernel. Thank you John! Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/ From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 09:10:26 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F56F16A4CE for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:10:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B5943FBF for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:10:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-smp@m.gmane.org) Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AHRAk-0003Jh-00 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:10:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from sea.gmane.org ([80.91.224.252]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AHQzu-00035c-00 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:59:10 +0100 Received: from news by sea.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AHQzu-0001zR-00 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:59:10 +0100 From: Jesse Guardiani Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:59:02 -0500 Organization: WingNET Lines: 39 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 X-Mail-Copies-To: never Sender: news Subject: SMPng question X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: jesse@wingnet.net List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:10:26 -0000 Howdy list, I have a few questions about FreeBSD's in-progress SMPng project. I've read much of the literature on the FreeBSD site about SMPng, and I've taken the time to go through the project status pages and look at the work that has already been done and the work yet to be done here: http://www.freebsd.org/smp/index.html http://www.freebsd.org/projects/busdma/index.html But I'm still unclear about a few things: 1.) What, exactly, are SMPng's advantages over the current SMP implementation as related to userland apps? In other words, I know that the network stack and devices and such will benefit by being able to make use of multiple CPUs, but will normal non-multi-threaded apps be able to use multiple CPUs? Or will an app still have to be multi-threaded in order to take full advantage of an SMP box? 2.) And, perhaps as an extension to question #1: Will I be able to make use of multiple CPUs to compile programs? Could I buy one of those cheap $300 quad Xeon 500mhz compaq boxes on ebay and use it as a 2 Ghz compiler box? Thanks! -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 09:44:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EE316A4CE for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (ol.freeshell.org [192.94.73.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DC143FE0 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:44:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pieckiel@sdf.lonestar.org) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:pieckiel@vinland.freeshell.org [192.94.73.6]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hA5HicOF010102; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:44:38 GMT Received: (from pieckiel@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id hA5HicGV015787; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:44:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:44:38 -0500 From: "Kevin A. Pieckiel" To: Jesse Guardiani Message-ID: <20031105174438.GA8014@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMPng question X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:44:47 -0000 On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:59:02AM -0500, Jesse Guardiani wrote: > 1.) What, exactly, are SMPng's advantages over the current > SMP implementation as related to userland apps? > > In other words, I know that the network stack and devices > and such will benefit by being able to make use of > multiple CPUs, but will normal non-multi-threaded apps > be able to use multiple CPUs? Or will an app still have > to be multi-threaded in order to take full advantage > of an SMP box? I'm sure others can comment more thoroughly on this than I can, but basically non-threaded processes won't concurrently use multiple CPUs. Afterall, they aren't threaded. But multiple non-threaded processes can run concurrently. One of the larger differences in this type of scenario will be when system calls are made by userland apps. With Giant, there is more contention for kernel resources, but with SMPng, this has been greatly relieved. This is where you can see some performance gains. > 2.) And, perhaps as an extension to question #1: Will I > be able to make use of multiple CPUs to compile programs? Yes, but only if you have multiple sources to compile. You're Hello World program won't compile any faster, but I'd imagine anything susceptible to concurrent compiling (using -j with make, for example) would see a benefit. However, this scenario is just a specific example of #1 above--multiple non-threaded programs (gcc in this case) running concurrently. > Could I buy one of those cheap $300 quad Xeon 500mhz > compaq boxes on ebay and use it as a 2 Ghz compiler box? No, not really; you're going to lose some performance in just keeping up with multiple processors. In other words, it's not a linear increase in performance when you add processors. However, if you have up to four things to actively do at the same time, then a quad Xeon computer will probably benefit you. Running a web and/or mail server, for example, where you have concurrent processes handling concurrent connections, is a good example. Running your favorite word processor while crunching WAV's to MP3's, probably. You'll notice less of a response-time lag over a single processor computer at the very least. Checking your E-Mail while browsing the Internet, you'll probably not notice anything different, and a single processor 2.0 GHz computer will probably be faster. Kevin From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 11:20:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D0716A4CE for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690BE43FA3 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:20:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-smp@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AHTCT-0004zV-00 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:20:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from sea.gmane.org ([80.91.224.252]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AHTCQ-0004zN-00 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:20:14 +0100 Received: from news by sea.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AHTCQ-0007zI-00 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:20:14 +0100 From: Jesse Guardiani Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:20:10 -0500 Organization: WingNET Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <20031105174438.GA8014@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 X-Mail-Copies-To: never Sender: news Subject: Re: SMPng question X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: jesse@wingnet.net List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:20:19 -0000 Kevin A. Pieckiel wrote: [...] >> Could I buy one of those cheap $300 quad Xeon 500mhz >> compaq boxes on ebay and use it as a 2 Ghz compiler box? > > No, not really; you're going to lose some performance in just > keeping up with multiple processors. In other words, it's not > a linear increase in performance when you add processors. OK. That's what I thought. Do you have a figure on the amount of performance lost managing multiple CPU's? I'm looking at this from a cost perspective, essentially. Take These two computers for example: 4 CPU 500Mhz Xeon w/1M cache and 1Gb RAM for $350: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3054734970&category=1484 2.4 Ghz P4 Intel 800FSB (cache size unknown) and 1 GB Ram for $600: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2763877081&category=51139 --------- Ratio Math for Cost ---------- $350 x ------ * --- $600 100 $35,000 = $600x 58.33% = x ---------- End Ratio Math ------------- So, the 2.4Ghz machine is 58.33% more expensive than the quad 500Mhz machine. If I could get 60%-70% of the performance of the 2.4Ghz machine out of quad 500Mhz machine then I'd consider purchasing the quad 500Mhz machine to be a good deal, considering cost. However: --------- Ratio Math for CPU ---------- 2,400 Mhz 100 ------ * --- 2,000 Mhz (4x500Mhz) x 200,000 = 2400x 83.33 = x ---------- End Ratio Math ------------- As shown by the above ratio math, the quad 500Mhz machine is only 83.33% as powerful as the 2.4 Ghz UP machine, so the quad 500Mhz machine running SMPng would have to only incur 23.33%-13.33% operating losses in order to reach my 60%-70% efficiency goal. :) Anyone have an idea what SMPng per processor loss percentages are? The 2.4Ghz machine will probably blow away the quad 500Mhz machine regardless since it has 400Mhz DDR RAM and an 800Mhz FSB. Still, it would be really neat to see some benchmarks on things like this for future decision making. -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 13:04:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0A016A4CE; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:04:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net (fed1mtao02.cox.net [68.6.19.243]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DE543F3F; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:04:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from s.wingate@pobox.com) Received: from daemon.g-e-e-k.net ([68.105.195.160]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031105210405.PMZZ27510.fed1mtao02.cox.net@daemon.g-e-e-k.net>; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:04:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:03:58 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Wingate X-X-Sender: steve@daemon.g-e-e-k.net To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031105125535.B41708@daemon.g-e-e-k.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD Questions List Subject: machdep.hlt_logical_cpus X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 21:04:06 -0000 I don't see this as a recognized option in 4.9-STABLE daemon# uname -a FreeBSD daemon.g-e-e-k.net 4.9-STABLE FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE #11: Wed Oct 29 13:08:33 PST 2003 root@daemon.g-e-e-k.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/XEON i386 ------------ daemon# sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus=0 sysctl: unknown oid 'machdep.hlt_logical_cpus' -------------- daemon# dmesg Copyright (c) 1992-2003 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE #11: Wed Oct 29 13:08:33 PST 2003 root@daemon.g-e-e-k.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/XEON Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Intel(R) XEON(TM) CPU 1.80GHz (1784.28-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf24 Stepping = 4 Features=0x3febfbff Hyperthreading: 2 logical CPUs real memory = 1073676288 (1048512K bytes) avail memory = 1041297408 (1016892K bytes) Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #0 IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 -> irq 0 FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor motherboard: 2 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): apic id: 0, version: 0x00050014, at 0xfee00000 cpu1 (AP): apic id: 1, version: 0x00050014, at 0xfee00000 io0 (APIC): apic id: 2, version: 0x00178020, at 0xfec00000 Preloaded elf kernel "kernel" at 0xc03b4000. Preloaded elf module "splash_bmp.ko" at 0xc03b409c. Warning: Pentium 4 CPU: PSE disabled Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Malloc disk module_register_init: MOD_LOAD (splash_bmp, c03af774, 0) error 2 Using $PIR table, 9 entries at 0xc00fded0 npx0: on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: on motherboard IOAPIC #0 intpin 19 -> irq 2 IOAPIC #0 intpin 17 -> irq 5 IOAPIC #0 intpin 23 -> irq 10 pci0: on pcib0 agp0: mem 0xe0000000-0xe3ffffff at device 0.0 on pci0 pcib1: at device 1.0 on pci0 IOAPIC #0 intpin 22 -> irq 11 pci1: on pcib1 pci1: at 0.0 irq 11 pcib2: at device 2.0 on pci0 pci2: on pcib2 pcib3: at device 31.0 on pci2 pci3: on pcib3 pci3: (vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1161) at 0.0 pcib4: at device 30.0 on pci0 IOAPIC #0 intpin 16 -> irq 14 pci4: on pcib4 fxp0: port 0xa000-0xa03f mem 0xe7000000-0xe70fffff,0xe7203000-0xe7203fff irq 5 at device 1.0 on pci4 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:04:ac:23:7b:e1 inphy0: on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto sym0: <895> port 0xa400-0xa4ff mem 0xe7201000-0xe7201fff,0xe7200000-0xe72000ff irq 2 at device 3.0 on pci4 sym0: Tekram NVRAM, ID 7, Fast-40, LVD, parity checking fxp1: port 0xa800-0xa83f mem 0xe7100000-0xe71fffff,0xe7202000-0xe7202fff irq 14 at device 4.0 on pci4 fxp1: Ethernet address 00:30:48:22:95:5c inphy1: on miibus1 inphy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto pcm0: port 0xac00-0xac1f irq 14 at device 7.0 on pci4 pcm0: isab0: at device 31.0 on pci0 isa0: on isab0 uhci0: port 0xd000-0xd01f irq 2 at device 31.2 on pci0 usb0: on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered pci0: (vendor=0x8086, dev=0x2443) at 31.3 irq 5 uhci1: port 0xd400-0xd41f irq 10 at device 31.4 on pci0 usb1: on uhci1 usb1: USB revision 1.0 uhub1: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub1: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered pcm1: port 0xdc00-0xdc3f,0xd800-0xd8ff irq 5 at device 31.5 on pci0 pcm1: orm0: