From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 31 11:16:27 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AD437B401 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tesla.distributel.net (nat.MTL.distributel.NET [66.38.181.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22C343E4A for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:16:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by tesla.distributel.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0VJH0b07556; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:17:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:17:00 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Matthew Dillon Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" , Trish Lynch , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Hyperthreading and machdep.cpu_idle_hlt Message-ID: <20030131141700.A7526@unixdaemons.com> References: <20030131125804.E1357-100000@femme> <200301311824.h0VIOtmF095380@apollo.backplane.com> <3E3AC33E.9060204@tcoip.com.br> <200301311908.h0VJ8cNZ007396@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200301311908.h0VJ8cNZ007396@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:08:38AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:08:38AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :AFAIK, full hyperthreading support, as it is, has been merged to > :-stable. It consists of a patch to recognize the virtual CPUs, so they > :will be dealt with like any SMP system, as long as HTT is enabled on the > :BIOS. > : > :-- > :Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) > :Gerencia de Operacoes > > Yah. Shoot, well this Sony VAIO desktop has a P4 with HTT set in > it, but it doesn't have an APIC, the BIOS is clueless, and there > is no mptable, so I guess I am S.O.L. in regards to using hyperthreading > on this box. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > Why do you think that hlt-ing the CPU(s) when idle would actually improve performance in this case? My only suspicion is that perhaps this reduces scheduling on the auxiliary 'logical' (fake) CPUs, thereby indirectly reducing cache ping-ponging and abuse. I would imagine that both units sharing the same execution engine in the HTT-enabled model would be effectively 'hlt'-ed when one of the two threads executes an 'hlt' until the next timer tick. I guess we'll wait for the two other data sets from Trish: one with HTT off, and cpu_idle_hlt=0, and the other with HTT off, and cpu_idle_hlt=1, before figuring this out. -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message