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 _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
