Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 21:43:35 +0200 From: Ivan Klymenko <fidaj@ukr.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: Harrison Grundy <harrison.grundy@astrodoggroup.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Subject: Re: RFC: Simplfying hyperthreading distinctions Message-ID: <20150321214336.334eaea5@nonamehost.local> In-Reply-To: <550DC564.5020802@freebsd.org> References: <1640664.8z9mx3EOQs@ralph.baldwin.cx> <54FA1180.3080605@astrodoggroup.com> <1526311.uylCbgv5VB@ralph.baldwin.cx> <20150320123823.GA49621@zxy.spb.ru> <550DC564.5020802@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
В Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:24:20 -0700 Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> пишет: > John, > > Just a quick note on this, hopefully it's not too off-topic... > > We need to detect if HTT or SMT is enabled, right now there are no > sysctl nodes to detect this and instead we have to parse xml out of > the scheduler... > > Does it make sense to have a basic sysctl tree for this? > > hw.cpu.threading.smt=0 > hw.cpu.threading.htt=0 > > or something? > I am sorry that I interfere Why then not use kern.smp.topology for this purpose?home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150321214336.334eaea5>