Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:57:58 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Emanuel Strobl <Emanuel.strobl@gmx.net> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lapic@2k interrukts eating CPU cycles Message-ID: <42B96E66.4040503@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200506221554.41750@harrymail> References: <200506091423.39940@harrymail> <200506220122.24315@harrymail> <86slza27md.fsf@xps.des.no> <200506221554.41750@harrymail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Emanuel Strobl wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2005 09:06 schrieb Dag-Erling Smørgrav: > >>Emanuel Strobl <Emanuel.strobl@gmx.net> writes: >> >>>I don't know what lapic stands for (the l, if apic means >>>AdvancedProgrammableInterruptController) >> >>local, meaning per-CPU as opposed to the IOAPIC which is located in >>the south bridge and shared by all CPUs. > > > Hmm, why do I see a lapic on my UP system? Because all x86 CPUs since the PentiumII have had an lAPIC built into them. > I've never seen before I > upgraded to -current (short before the code freeze to help finding bugs) Because you have 'options APIC' in your kernel, and your running a post 5.2 version of FreeBSD that has a massively improved interrupt routing system in it. > And what does the "ti" mean? ( from systat "2030 lapic0: ti" ) Short for 'timer' Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42B96E66.4040503>