Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:43:22 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Andy Farkas <andyf@speednet.com.au> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 machdep.c Message-ID: <20031101203448.Q3593@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20031101124953.I85774@hewey.af.speednet.com.au> References: <XFMail.20031031142539.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20031101124953.I85774@hewey.af.speednet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Andy Farkas wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On 31-Oct-2003 Bruce Evans wrote: > > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > >> > > >> On 31-Oct-2003 John Baldwin wrote: > > >> > jhb 2003/10/31 06:24:29 PST > > >> > > > >> > FreeBSD src repository > > >> > > > >> > Modified files: > > >> > sys/i386/i386 machdep.c > > >> > Log: > > >> > - Finish externing of r_idt in the f00f hack code. > > >> > - Miscellaneous style fixes in the f00f hack code and some nearby code. > > > ... > > >> This might actually fix SMP on Pentium's since the AP's will not > > >> point to the correct IDT without this fix. > > > > > > Have the been any reports of it being broken? We configure the f00f hack > > > code on all PentiumIs (aka P5s) including ones without the f00f bug, so > > > the r_idt bug probably breaks all SMP systems with such CPUs. > > > > Actually, since this still used the global r_idt in the SMP case, I'm > > not sure it was really broken. However, to the best of my knowledge, > > SMP currently doesn't owrk on PentiumI systems right now at least in > > current and possibly in stable as well. > > SMP on Pentium Broken? My current dmesg.boot says: The bug may be just that only 1 CPU (the BSP (?)) gets the f00f hack. So there is no problem if none of the CPUs have the f00f bug or if only one of them has it and it is the one that gets the hack. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031101203448.Q3593>