Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:37:04 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Simplfying hyperthreading distinctions Message-ID: <CAJ-VmoknoYw-jkihmutN6qB=Piy4O73bzV50ijDaEaNvEncGpA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1640664.8z9mx3EOQs@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <1640664.8z9mx3EOQs@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! 1) I'd rather we leave them as SMT/HTT as they're slightly different things. Who knows if intel will re-introduce this stuff in their more embedded CPU line at a future time, or add another threading type in the future. Being told about the distinction is nice. 2) I'd rather we had it more clearly defind - machdep.htt_allowed / machdep.smt_allowed . Again, I'd rather have the distinction in case Intel decide again to make their embedded things use old-style threading. (The intel edison/galilleo boards use P1 style cores that are low power, I can imagine a world where they reuse HTT for that.) 3) I'd like that kind of tunable setting. And: 4) Yes, I'd also like a machdep tunable for "don't bother routing interrupts to SMT / HTTs". You have that patch in your jhbbsd tree; I don't think it's in HEAD yet? -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmoknoYw-jkihmutN6qB=Piy4O73bzV50ijDaEaNvEncGpA>