Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:25:15 -0700
From:      Darren Pilgrim <freebsd@bitfreak.org>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Non-sequential AP starts [Was: Re: 8-core server]
Message-ID:  <46FDD3AB.3050305@bitfreak.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070928184659.GB57646@cicely12.cicely.de>
References:  <b41c75520709280103ied4e99dvfd33884185792a91@mail.gmail.com>	<46FCB7B7.9010301@FreeBSD.org>	<b41c75520709280121r1a1c658dje2c36d675fe82aa6@mail.gmail.com>	<20070928083322.GA17225@eos.sc1.parodius.com>	<46FD1631.9020708@evilphi.com> <20070928184659.GB57646@cicely12.cicely.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:56:49AM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> I think what you're not noticing is that the cores are being launched in
>>> non-sequential order.  1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6.  This isn't a problem.
>> Why they wouldn't be launched sequentially?
> 
> First SMP rule:
> Don't expect a specific execution order from things running parallel.
> 
> I don't know the code, but would assume that they are started
> sequentially and each core prints it's own line, so they get
> disordered.

This question bugged me long enough for me to go read some source to 
find the answer, but I ended up with more questions.  I guess that's 
what I get for reading boot code. :)  I know it's basically just a race 
condition, but where does the race actually occur?  In each core's 
execution of startup instructions leading up to the printf() in 
init_secondary() or in the assignment of the value returned by 
PCPU_GET(cpudid)?  Where is the data behind PCPU_GET() anyway?  I 
couldn't find it.  Is AP launch order random or are there CPU 
characteristics that result in reproducible non-sequential ordering?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46FDD3AB.3050305>