Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:58:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE problems on HTT SMP Message-ID: <16128.16880.618174.525346@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030628172232.F17881-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <XFMail.20030627185931.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030628172232.F17881-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeff Roberson writes: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > On 27-Jun-2003 Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > > Jeff Roberson writes: > > > > > > > > Can you call kseq_print(0) and kseq_print(1) from ddb? > > > > > > > > > > I found a different problem which is nearly as interesting. > > > Note that ps thinks sysctl is on cpu 255... > > > > #define NOCPU 0xff /* For when we aren't on a CPU. (SMP) */ > > > > So that isn't but so interesting. :) > > The problem is that the logical cpu halting code does not put the halted > CPU in the stopped cpus set. ULE has no way of knowing that it can not > migrate a thread to this cpu. I'd prefer it if you could make this change > John, but I can certainly do it if you're busy. > Does this mean that if, as a temporary measure, I disable machdep.cpu_idle_hlt, ULE should work for me? Thanks, Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16128.16880.618174.525346>