Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:41:33PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP = Assymmetric
> > > > multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
> > >
> > > "correctly". Intel doesn't support this (mis)configuration:
> > > especia
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:20:40PM +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Notice, that one of your CPUs is twice as fast as second one. You'll
> need some heavy updates in scheduler.
I know that making sure to have a fair scheduling on non-symmetric
multiprocess
Hi!
> Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >recently upgrading one of my two CPUs, I found kernel-2.4.2 to be unable to
> >handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP =3D Assymmetric
> >multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
>
> This is not really a configuration Linux supports. You can ha
> > > > handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP = Assymmetric
> > > > multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
> > >
> > > "correctly". Intel doesn't support this (mis)configuration:
> > > especially with different steppings, not to mention models.
>
> I wouldn't call it misconfiguration, just be
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:41:33PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP = Assymmetric
> > > multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
> >
> > "correctly". Intel doesn't support this (mis)configuration:
> > especially with different steppings, not to mention models.
> > handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP = Assymmetric
> > multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
>
> "correctly". Intel doesn't support this (mis)configuration:
> especially with different steppings, not to mention models.
Actually for a lot of cases its quite legal.
> Alan has, or is work
> recently upgrading one of my two CPUs, I found kernel-2.4.2 to be
> unable to handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP =3D
> Assymmetric multiprocessing ;-) correctly. Some details on my system:
> Dual BX board (DFI P2XBL/D), iPII 350 (Deschutes) + iPIII 850
> (Coppermine) Note: The diffe
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>recently upgrading one of my two CPUs, I found kernel-2.4.2 to be unable to
>handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP =3D Assymmetric
>multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
This is not really a configuration Linux support
> recently upgrading one of my two CPUs, I found kernel-2.4.2 to be unable to
> handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP = Assymmetric
> multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
"correctly". Intel doesn't support this (mis)configuration:
especially with different steppings, not to mention models.
Hi,
recently upgrading one of my two CPUs, I found kernel-2.4.2 to be unable to
handle the situation with 2 different CPUs (AMP = Assymmetric
multiprocessing ;-) correctly.
Some details on my system:
Dual BX board (DFI P2XBL/D), iPII 350 (Deschutes) + iPIII 850 (Coppermine)
Note: The difference i
10 matches
Mail list logo