Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:33:45 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 local_apic.c src/sys/amd64/amd64 local_apic.c Message-ID: <200609051633.46888.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <44FDD7E5.1000803@FreeBSD.org> References: <200609051715.k85HFPtF078969@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609051435.37443.jhb@freebsd.org> <44FDD7E5.1000803@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 16:02, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >>> (That is, are there any such places. If so, you > >>> just broke them.) > >> No, I believe that I did not, unless you can provide example of the > >> contrary. > > > > linprocfs, but it lies anyway. I've engaged in hacks like this in 4.x, > > That's what I mean - I can't imagine how can you get any useful > statistics out of CPU times by combining it with number of processors. > > > but I think they are just that: hacks. I think a real fix is to support > > turning off CPUs in the MI code and allow userland to query via a non-hackish > > interface how many CPUs are actually enabled and get appropriate load stats, > > etc. based on that. > > Yes, that's would be nice. But in the meantime my goal is to resolve > obvious regression we have in the 6.x release in the presence of the HTT > CPU. It's not a regression I think as 4.x and 5.x both do the same as before this commit (IIRC), but that's ok. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609051633.46888.jhb>