From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 13:40:05 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AF5106564A for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963318FC15 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7NDe58v041237 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o7NDe5jI041236; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:05 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:05 GMT Message-Id: <201008231340.o7NDe5jI041236@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: John Baldwin Cc: Subject: Re: kern/145385: [cpu] Logical processor cannot be disabled for some SMT-enabled Intel procs X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: John Baldwin List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:40:05 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/145385; it has been noted by GNATS. From: John Baldwin To: Garrett Cooper Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, gcooper@freebsd.org, jkim@freebsd.org, Attilio Rao Subject: Re: kern/145385: [cpu] Logical processor cannot be disabled for some SMT-enabled Intel procs Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:33:43 -0400 On Sunday, August 22, 2010 4:17:37 am Garrett Cooper wrote: > The following trivial patch fixes the issue on my W3520 processor; AFAICS it's what should be done after reading several of the specs because the logical count that's tracked with ebx is exactly what is needed for logical_cpus (it's an absolute quantity). I need to verify it with a multi-cpu topology at work (the two r710s I was testing with E-series Xeons on aren't available remotely right now). > Thanks! > -Garrett Jung-uk Kim and Attilio Rao have both been looking at this code recently and are in a better position to review the patch in the PR. -- John Baldwin