From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 22:59:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E112337B401; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.139]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F0F43F93; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:59:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-uinj8ql.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.163.85] helo=mindspring.com) by puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19d1nL-0002Ks-00; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:59:12 -0700 Message-ID: <3F163AF2.967C117D@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:58:10 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4cb71d4917caf698f9cdc4eacbb235a7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org cc: Patrik Veselik Subject: Re: maximum of CPUs X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:59:14 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On 16-Jul-2003 Terry Lambert wrote: > >> This is from the current code that is trying to renumber the I/O > >> APIC's since they collide with CPUs. I've completely rewritten > >> all the mptable code, but I don't support renumbering I/O APICs > >> yet. I was really hoping that the BIOS would help us out enough > >> to keep the IDs from overlapping. > > > > I thought it had to, to be MP Spec 1.4 compliant?!? > > What had to be what to be compliant? I thought the BIOS had to "help us out enough" for the motherboard to be MP Spec 1.4 compliant. > > This whole "stuff everything into ACPI and to hell with the > > standards" thing that vendors are doing on Intel these days > > is really, really annoying. > > No, it's correct. The mptable is quite limited and ACPI's > configuration mechanism is much cleaner. Complaining about > ACPI in this matter only serves to display your ignorance of > what it is and how it works. Please educate yourself on the > real issues first, thanks. Please take a look at the picture of Warner's laptop which failed to turn on the fans or reduce the CPU speed when the temperature went up, and warped the display and keyboard as it practically melted them into unrecognizability, thanks to the ACPI not working like it was supposed to work, even if you turned off autosuspend. Also, please read the Intel Multiprocessing Specification version 1.4, and note that it says nothing whatsoever about ACPI replacing the MPTable, and that the MPTable is the only documented standard mechanism for implementing obtaining MP information in an Intel Multiprocessing Specification version 1.4 compliant fashion. ACPI may have a cleaner interface, but standards rule when it comes to trying to get software running (and I have yet to see APM turn a laptop into "The Incredible Melting Man": anything that works is better than anything that doesn't). -- Terry