From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 15 19:07:43 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C828106566B; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:07:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Andriy Gapon Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:07:32 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <201007151657.o6FGv97V080710@lurza.secnetix.de> <4C3F4BBB.30606@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4C3F4BBB.30606@icyb.net.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201007151507.33998.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Oliver Fromme Subject: Re: 8.1-PRERELEASE: CPU packages not detected correctly X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:07:43 -0000 On Thursday 15 July 2010 01:56 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 15/07/2010 19:57 Oliver Fromme said the following: > > In topo_probe(), cpu_high is 0xd, so topo_probe_0xb() is > > called. But the cpuid 0xb instruction doesn't seem to > > return useful data: All values are zero already in the > > first level, so cpu_cores remains 0. > > > > Back in topo_probe(), there is a fallback if cpu_cores is > > stil 0: It assigns mp_ncpu to cpu_cores, so it gets 8 > > which is wrong. > > > > I patched topo_probe() so it calls topo_probe_0x4() after > > topo_probe_0xb() if cpu_cores is still 0. I think this > > is a better fallback procedure. With this patch, cpu_cores > > gets the value 4 which is the correct one, finally: > > > > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 8 CPUs > > FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 4 core(s) > > Thank you for debugging this issue! > Not sure if this is the best patch that there can be, but its > direction is definitely correct. > As the Intel document says (translated to our x86 mp_machdep.c > terms): if cpu_high >= 0xb then we should execute cpuid_count(0xb, > 0, p) and examine EBX value (p[1]), only if it's non-zero should we > proceed with topo_probe_0xb(), otherwise we should fall back to > topo_probe_0x4, etc. > > I think that your addition achieves this effect, perhaps just not > as explicitly as I would preferred. > > Jung-uk, what do you think? Yes, you're right. Please try new patch: http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/mp_machdep2.diff Thanks, Jung-uk Kim > > This is the patch, it's against jkim's patched version: > > @@ -265,7 +268,7 @@ > > else if (cpu_vendor_id == CPU_VENDOR_INTEL) { > > if (cpu_high >= 0xb) > > topo_probe_0xb(); > > - else if (cpu_high >= 0x4) > > + if (cpu_high >= 0x4 && cpu_cores == 0) > > topo_probe_0x4(); > > } > > if (cpu_cores == 0)