From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 04:35:58 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 681DEA35; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 1647228C3; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a108so16125908qge.39 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:35:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=R27k2WIwqEWEFqESHTcBdTTIN2nB0/fJpLan2oQAvr4=; b=HimmbGC0Ek5cEJEZIzzVEdSiAnL4mRtxzVSTfenKjN7TzaAT7uSItY42bQ8oykw/mG JoloPYMkdjaeBpxdMo/KTAJO+lYeJlKWoGyL1ln4UhRF+ZiMekTIU0zPVm1ynluj8BR8 MCz1qNPzxdZzmJ+DaVaDBL99Dthh0BQzZmp799PDWlrDkhtpfNpUNDiw9gZHKR3fXiwn YutiUJlIRiv3pyLzb9QQ52fFOkoSJ0bp7sLSN3H/TEv3H/LpEEL27I0jqIyb+fcgSNBL fGedW6MOfO5DWi3wzeb4G1evYxPE+FNfDkLCUO6V2rt+u87i8g/nYWzxa8DJWO2uMkeH J3ig== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.91.5 with SMTP id y5mr46888813qgd.12.1401251757249; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.191.201 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:35:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140524014713.GF13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> <20140524024231.GG13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> <20140524103835.GI13462@carrick-users.bishnet.net> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:35:57 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dDNZH8GOQHVP4M37yV7DqQ9sHc8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Processor cores not properly detected/activated? From: Adrian Chadd To: Jia-Shiun Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT , Alan Somers , Tim Bishop 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 04:35:58 -0000 Im about to start the process of creating a cpuid_t and peppering it around the source tree. Too many odd places use u_char as a cpuid and it's going to be limiting. -a On 27 May 2014 21:11, Jia-Shiun Li wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"