Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:39:05 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: X2APIC support Message-ID: <20160912093905.GP34394@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <358ed414-9da6-ac29-55fc-6d7be680c2ce@FreeBSD.org> References: <20151212130615.GE70867@zxy.spb.ru> <20151212133513.GL82577@kib.kiev.ua> <20160901112724.GX88122@zxy.spb.ru> <20160901114500.GJ83214@kib.kiev.ua> <20160901121300.GZ88122@zxy.spb.ru> <4ba05c00-f737-f562-553d-a7fa59145768@FreeBSD.org> <20160904151415.GE83214@kib.kiev.ua> <f727b18d-6061-fbaf-6afc-1ae66f8cce16@FreeBSD.org> <20160904162926.GF83214@kib.kiev.ua> <358ed414-9da6-ac29-55fc-6d7be680c2ce@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 08:14:07PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 04/09/2016 19:29, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > This is possible, of course. But it would not affect "SMP: Added CPU ..."
> > lines.
>
> Well, looking at the code it seems that only if mptable is used, then those
> lines are expected to correctly identify a BSP. With MADT there is no
> information to identify the BSP and that is supposed to happen in cpu_mp_start().
>
>
> static void
> madt_add_cpu(u_int acpi_id, u_int apic_id, u_int flags)
> {
> struct lapic_info *la;
>
> /*
> * The MADT does not include a BSP flag, so we have to let the
> * MP code figure out which CPU is the BSP on its own.
> */
> ...
>
> In other words, those "SMP: Added CPU ..." are truly a cosmetic issue.
> And it's my guess (just a guess) that BSP LAPIC ID is incorrect in the
> problematic configuration.
For next day or two I am have new server with same hardware before put
in prodution.
Can I do some test for you?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160912093905.GP34394>