Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:56:06 +0100 From: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.1-RELEASE AMD64 crash under VBox 4.2.6 when IO APIC is disabled Message-ID: <CAFYkXjnv_7M-s4cGTeuNZMtF-XANnJ=bb%2BgnoX_0=-G3y9xPYg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201302131048.06370.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <CAFYkXjknuDPr=FYxkj9eYDsSRh_kUa=9ubyDR=84=hWi85RTiw@mail.gmail.com> <201302111606.06731.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAFYkXjkAfR%2Bzj4X=ZjwNdWmqanfXCZRt37%2BB41VCM71z79g7qA@mail.gmail.com> <201302131048.06370.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> The simple answer that I have deduced is that APIC is MANDATORY for >> AMD64 machines and they won't run otherwise? This is why generic AMD64 >> install fails when no APIC is enabled in the VBox? > > No, it is not quite like that. x86 machines have two entirely different > sets of interrupt controllers. (...) Hello John :-) Things now are more clear to me, thank you for your extensive explanation!! :-) I am wondering in that case if it wouldn't be a good idea to put atpci (old x86 IRQ handler) in the GENERIC configuration, or at least in the default installer kernel, so it is a safe fallback for a AMD64 machines with no APIC support, as for example VBox with APIC disabled..? Is atpic removed on purpose so it enforces use of new APIC and so better performance? Thank you! :-) Tomek Cedro -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXjnv_7M-s4cGTeuNZMtF-XANnJ=bb%2BgnoX_0=-G3y9xPYg>