Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 00:58:35 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Simplfying hyperthreading distinctions Message-ID: <20150306215835.GB95179@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmoknoYw-jkihmutN6qB=Piy4O73bzV50ijDaEaNvEncGpA@mail.gmail.com> References: <1640664.8z9mx3EOQs@ralph.baldwin.cx> <CAJ-VmoknoYw-jkihmutN6qB=Piy4O73bzV50ijDaEaNvEncGpA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 01:37:04PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi! > > 1) I'd rather we leave them as SMT/HTT as they're slightly different > things. Who knows if intel will re-introduce this stuff in their more > embedded CPU line at a future time, or add another threading type in > the future. Being told about the distinction is nice. May be diagnostic HTT[SMT] or HTT[HTT] is best chois? > 2) I'd rather we had it more clearly defind - machdep.htt_allowed / > machdep.smt_allowed . Again, I'd rather have the distinction in case > Intel decide again to make their embedded things use old-style > threading. (The intel edison/galilleo boards use P1 style cores that > are low power, I can imagine a world where they reuse HTT for that.) I think this distinction don't need -- any way this setup is per-box. If you need to disable HTT/SMT -- you don't need to choise between machdep.htt_allowed and machdep.smt_allowed -- only one exist.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150306215835.GB95179>