Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Robert Watson wrote: So, are you suggesting that we should disable machdep.hyperthreading_allowed with ULE in 7.x and current to avoid confusion? Possibly even without ULE. I've verified - the tunable/sysctl works just fine with SCHED_4BSD in 7.1, so that I am not sure it's worth ripping it

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Robert Watson
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote: Unfortunately access to BIOS is not always an option and also some BIOSes don't even provide a feature to turn HTT off. It's not quite that simple -- in a world of device drivers pinning threads to CPUs for workload distribution, callout threads and

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Robert Watson wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote: 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. Howeve

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Robert Watson
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote: It's not quite that simple -- in a world of device drivers pinning threads to CPUs for workload distribution, callout threads and sched_bind()/sched_pin() for crypto load distribution, etc, you need a whole infrastructure for software-disabled CPUs. D

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Robert Watson
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote: 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 recom

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Maxim Sobolev
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 h

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Robert Watson wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote: Hi Jeff, I have a single-CPU system with P4 HTT-enabled processor (7.1-RELEASE-p3), kernel compiled with SCHED_ULE. This is because machdep.hlt_logical_cpus doesn't do what you think it does. It causes HTT cores to invoke the

Re: The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-23 Thread Robert Watson
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote: Hi Jeff, I have a single-CPU system with P4 HTT-enabled processor (7.1-RELEASE-p3), kernel compiled with SCHED_ULE. This is because machdep.hlt_logical_cpus doesn't do what you think it does. It causes HTT cores to invoke the hlt instruction in the

The machdep.hyperthreading_allowed & ULE weirdness in 7.1

2009-02-22 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Hi Jeff, I have a single-CPU system with P4 HTT-enabled processor (7.1-RELEASE-p3), kernel compiled with SCHED_ULE. Copyright (c) 1992-2009 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rig