Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-23 Thread Eric W. Biederman
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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-23 Thread Kurt Garloff
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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-22 Thread Pavel Machek
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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-22 Thread Mark Hahn
> > > > 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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-22 Thread Kurt Garloff
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.

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-21 Thread Alan Cox
> > 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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-21 Thread James Bottomley
> 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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
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

Re: SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-21 Thread Mark Hahn
> 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.

SMP on assym. x86

2001-03-21 Thread Kurt Garloff
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