Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:38:21 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 local_apic.c Message-ID: <200609271338.22284.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <451A9E1E.30601@samsco.org> References: <200609261608.k8QG8TYB044266@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609271117.25831.jhb@freebsd.org> <451A9E1E.30601@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:51, Scott Long wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 26 September 2006 19:08, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > >>John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >>>On Tuesday 26 September 2006 12:08, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >>> > >>>>sobomax 2006-09-26 16:08:29 UTC > >>>> > >>>> FreeBSD src repository > >>>> > >>>> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_6) > >>>> sys/i386/i386 local_apic.c > >>>> Log: > >>>> Revert 1.17.2.8, which reportedly causes problems on some hardware. > >>> > >>>The report I saw was that it broke ULE in general. Are you going to > > > > revert it > > > >>>from amd64 as well? > >> > >>Yes, you are right - this is ULE specific bug. In fact, quick grep of > >>the ULE code reveals that it doesn't honor hlt_cpus_mask, so that the > >>problem is with ULE, not with the change in question. > > > > > > Well, hlt_cpus_mask is really an x86-specific hack. :) > > > > x86 and amd64, which represent about 95% of FreeBSD. My point is that we need a notion of taking CPUs offline and online with scheudler hooks, instead of exporting a simple x86-specific bitmask. Right now we don't notify the schedulers when a CPU goes offline so that they can try to do sensible things with pinned and bound threads, etc. Instead, they just have to "notice" which is rediculously lame. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609271338.22284.jhb>