From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 04:12:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3237F7; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-x234.google.com (mail-oa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDBAE2769; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id eb12so10584154oac.39 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:12:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=KMhGZ4me4rU0i2ZfllCekbUMFtOHiRYN9GPh2Yc8pG4=; b=LeVJQjP2vNhsaNF5rELVTz7hrIBP0D2oIhFGLzIMqIwAj5T5H75kwr9ad0nlYbW+Iw fC2pzWOZwat7NI2Kny4pqgZrV7HbescilJSnrVarSy5Ze0IDZ6c9ypELABqSPrffBeTI FU8qTFLzgCZuvPM5no6g5/ejLta7G2KyYao6gUVtCKD6ikam79UdUpO3Tu8dRH1+hQhs pLvigp1WL3YIF9urCoRTfFUZF7hAfAb8O6E76rHZhFsPkb/0jn6Wd9EQHQ/h2Hi5Vm7D WrD7PbDTOdXQvZRaB5YrvtnSQFJxbtGVwNB9yF/BDguGf7xlS2fEXmgL/R/+kcRIMARd W5Dw== X-Received: by 10.60.131.210 with SMTP id oo18mr22995553oeb.70.1401250320194; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:12:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.123.178 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140524103835.GI13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> References: <20140524014713.GF13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> <20140524024231.GG13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> <20140524103835.GI13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> From: Jia-Shiun Li Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:11:30 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Processor cores not properly detected/activated? To: Tim Bishop Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT , Alan Somers X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 04:12:01 -0000 On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Tim Bishop wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 09:03:12PM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: >> Yeah, I think so. It seems like a GENERIC kernel ought to be able to >> handle the biggest commonly available quad socket systems. Anything >> with more than 4 sockets, though, is probably too exotic to deserve >> such special treatment. > > I submitted a PR to that effect: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=190169 > > Thanks again for your help. > > Tim. > Hi, I read in the follow-up of the PR that current hard limit is 256. Currently available systems* can already push usage up to 240. IVB-EX aka Xeon E7v2 supports 8-socket * 15-core * 2-thread. Expect something to break 256 in less than a year I think. X2APIC support will be required then. In theory it is already possible to build larger systems with custom glue logic, but I am not aware of any. *: E.g. IBM System x3950 X6 -Jia-Shiun.