From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 18:39:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2061F106575D; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:39:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk1.360sip.com [72.236.70.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58DF8FC1C; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:39:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.38] (S0106001372fd1e07.vs.shawcable.net [70.71.171.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1NIdsQj010051 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:39:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <49A2ED6A.9040202@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:39:38 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <200902231652.n1NGqMxH047731@post.behrens.de> <49A2DE9D.4090902@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Frank Behrens , Jeff Roberson , "current@freebsd.org" , stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:39:59 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > In the mean time, it sounds like the sysctl does need to be > reimplemented or removed, but one question is how far to take it -- > caches are shared to varying degrees at varying levels of the topology. > However, I believe the recommendation has generally moved to disabling > hyperthreading using the BIOS, as that uses the vendor's notion of > hyperthreading. The idea of changing the setting at run-time is > currently untenable because we don't have the OS infrastructure to take > CPUs out of service, although growing it would be useful in order to > support virtual machine dynamic CPU reconfiguration. Well, as far as I know, what SCHED_4BSD does is simply stopping scheduling threads to the logical core(s). One doesn't need infrastructure to take CPU off-line for doing the same in SCHED_ULE. Unfortunately access to BIOS is not always an option and also some BIOSes don't even provide a feature to turn HTT off. -Maxim