Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:33:39 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@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: <44FDFB43.90203@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200609051633.46888.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200609051715.k85HFPtF078969@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609051435.37443.jhb@freebsd.org> <44FDD7E5.1000803@FreeBSD.org> <200609051633.46888.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > 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. Yes, this problem was introduced by the fix to the famous "HTT vulnerability". -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44FDFB43.90203>