Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:26:20 -0700 From: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: My first SMP kernel... Message-ID: <199702040126.SAA18606@clem.systemsix.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 01:32:02 %2B0100." <Mutt.19970204013202.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > 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 The 90 MHz chip has recently been replaced by 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. SSS? I don't see that in the list. what specifically are the exact S-spec #s of each? I've found that you can't trust the printout on boot of the CPU features, some versions got the bitfields messed up. > > > > 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. interesting, I would have guessed this would cause boot problems, but I guess not... --- > 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. during boot the 2nd CPU does some initialization then spins in a tight loop till the sysctl is done, so yes, you never actually were running the 2nd CPU. one possibility for testing would be to get Peter to place a known working kernel on freefall, then grab it & try, since your hardware is so similar. -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702040126.SAA18606>