Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:14:07 +0300
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>, stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: X2APIC support
Message-ID:  <358ed414-9da6-ac29-55fc-6d7be680c2ce@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160904162926.GF83214@kib.kiev.ua>
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>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
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.

-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?358ed414-9da6-ac29-55fc-6d7be680c2ce>