From owner-freebsd-alpha Wed Jul 18 17:22:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo.feral.com [192.67.166.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA5E37B405 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:22:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo (mjacob@beppo [192.67.166.79]) by beppo.feral.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6J0MpS52933 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:22:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:22:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@beppo Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: multiple cpus on an 8200... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I got multiple CPUs to appear to be available on an 8200... 1. I had to fake past the 'processor available' bit- it wasn't set for the second CPU even though SRM said it was present and availabele... 2. I came up, and it released it: release_aps: releasing secondary CPUs SMP: AP CPU #9 Launched! and I got to a login prompt... but very strangely the system locks up briefly and then runs okay again. It's quite bizaare. One has to wonder whether or not there are some implicit assumptions in the code in places about CPUId. It also might in fact be an efficiency issue. We're using PAL calls for interprocessor interrupts. That *might* be less efficient than using some h/w specific mechanisms for IPIs. Oh- actually, now that I think about it- I might not have enabled IPIs for the CPUs, which means, heh, that IPIs might only be sampled. Yick... I'll go check... -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message