Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:32:02 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: My first SMP kernel... Message-ID: <Mutt.19970204013202.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199702040000.RAA18147@clem.systemsix.com>; from Steve Passe on Feb 3, 1997 17:00:36 -0700 References: <Mutt.19970203235009.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199702040000.RAA18147@clem.systemsix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Steve Passe wrote: > sounds a little shaky, any idea what the stepping of the original CPU is? It's a fairly new one. The 90 MHz chip has recently been replaced by a 100 MHz one (so we later had to find that there's no clock synthesizer on that board and that we don't have a 66 MHz oscillator lying around :). I've also verified before that both CPUs have the `SSS' signature. > > Note > > that this even happened when running this kernel uni-processor, while > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > by this you mean before doing "sysctl -w kern.smp_active=2"? No. Pulling the second CPU. Is the sysctl required to get the 2nd CPU running at all? If so, i never issued it, so i ran the machine uni-processor all the time. > did you also use options SMP_INVLTLB? this is necessary. It's been there initially, and i've took it out later, ``just in case''. Made no difference. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970204013202.j>