From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 5 22:33:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADFE16A4DE; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:33:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk.360sip.com [72.236.70.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B27243D5A; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:33:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.49] ([204.244.149.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k85MXs3G037492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:33:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <44FDFB43.90203@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:33:39 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <200609051715.k85HFPtF078969@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609051435.37443.jhb@freebsd.org> <44FDD7E5.1000803@FreeBSD.org> <200609051633.46888.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200609051633.46888.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:34:00 -0000 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