On Thursday 15 July 2010 01:56 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 15/07/2010 19:57 Oliver Fromme said the following: > > In topo_probe(), cpu_high is 0xd, so topo_probe_0xb() is > > called. But the cpuid 0xb instruction doesn't seem to > > return useful data: All values are zero already in the > > first level, so cpu_cores remains 0. > > > > Back in topo_probe(), there is a fallback if cpu_cores is > > stil 0: It assigns mp_ncpu to cpu_cores, so it gets 8 > > which is wrong. > > > > I patched topo_probe() so it calls topo_probe_0x4() after > > topo_probe_0xb() if cpu_cores is still 0. I think this > > is a better fallback procedure. With this patch, cpu_cores > > gets the value 4 which is the correct one, finally: > > > > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 8 CPUs > > FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 4 core(s) > > Thank you for debugging this issue! > Not sure if this is the best patch that there can be, but its > direction is definitely correct. > As the Intel document says (translated to our x86 mp_machdep.c > terms): if cpu_high >= 0xb then we should execute cpuid_count(0xb, > 0, p) and examine EBX value (p[1]), only if it's non-zero should we > proceed with topo_probe_0xb(), otherwise we should fall back to > topo_probe_0x4, etc. > > I think that your addition achieves this effect, perhaps just not > as explicitly as I would preferred. > > Jung-uk, what do you think?
Yes, you're right. Please try new patch: http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/mp_machdep2.diff Thanks, Jung-uk Kim > > This is the patch, it's against jkim's patched version: > > @@ -265,7 +268,7 @@ > > else if (cpu_vendor_id == CPU_VENDOR_INTEL) { > > if (cpu_high >= 0xb) > > topo_probe_0xb(); > > - else if (cpu_high >= 0x4) > > + if (cpu_high >= 0x4 && cpu_cores == 0) > > topo_probe_0x4(); > > } > > if (cpu_cores == 0) _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
