On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >If you can't support that in your hardware you're supposed
>> >to clear it.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
If you can't support that in your hardware you're supposed
to clear it.
Hmm! How would
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> I don't quite understand the purpose of the patch to begin with. Looking
> at
> >> the current x86 git tree, apic_is_clustered_box is used only to
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> I don't quite understand the purpose of the patch to begin with. Looking at
>> the current x86 git tree, apic_is_clustered_box is used only to determine if
>> tsc is synchronized on the platform. The AMD docs imply that TSC's are
> I don't quite understand the purpose of the patch to begin with. Looking at
> the current x86 git tree, apic_is_clustered_box is used only to determine if
> tsc is synchronized on the platform. The AMD docs imply that TSC's are not
> guaranteed to be synced across cores between nodes --
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:05:45PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>> Andi, Yes. AMD based vSMPowered systems uses clustered APICs, and this
>> check base on cpu vendor id is not good :(.
>
>please check if you
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range
> could
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
>> be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three
>> clusters
>> and
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three
clusters
and that is
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range
could
be [4,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:05:45PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Andi, Yes. AMD based vSMPowered systems uses clustered APICs, and this
check base on cpu vendor id is not good :(.
please check if you happy with
I don't quite understand the purpose of the patch to begin with. Looking at
the current x86 git tree, apic_is_clustered_box is used only to determine if
tsc is synchronized on the platform. The AMD docs imply that TSC's are not
guaranteed to be synced across cores between nodes -- Opteron
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
I don't quite understand the purpose of the patch to begin with. Looking at
the current x86 git tree, apic_is_clustered_box is used only to determine if
tsc is synchronized on the platform. The AMD docs imply that TSC's are not
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
I don't quite understand the purpose of the patch to begin with. Looking
at
the current x86 git tree, apic_is_clustered_box is used only to determine
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
> > be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three
>
please check the fix for v2.
this one can be applied to x86.git#testing
YH
---
[PATCH] x86_64: apic_is_clustered_box fix for vsmp
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three clusters
and that
On Sunday 24 February 2008 03:00:52 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sunday 24 February 2008 04:29:03 am Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range
> > > could
> > > be [4, 0x23].
On Sunday 24 February 2008 04:29:03 am Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
> > be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three
> > clusters
> >
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
> be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three clusters
> and that is large than 2. So it is treated as clustered_box.
Ok I see you
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three clusters
and that is large than 2. So it is treated as clustered_box.
Ok I see you
On Sunday 24 February 2008 04:29:03 am Andi Kleen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three
clusters
and that is
On Sunday 24 February 2008 03:00:52 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Sunday 24 February 2008 04:29:03 am Andi Kleen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range
could
be [4, 0x23]. and
please check the fix for v2.
this one can be applied to x86.git#testing
YH
---
[PATCH] x86_64: apic_is_clustered_box fix for vsmp
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three clusters
and that
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range could
be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to three
clusters
* Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range
> could be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to
> three clusters and that is large than 2. So it is treated as
> clustered_box.
>
> and will get
>
>
* Yinghai Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quad core 8 socket system will have apic id lifting.the apic id range
could be [4, 0x23]. and apic_is_clustered_box will think that need to
three clusters and that is large than 2. So it is treated as
clustered_box.
and will get
Marking TSC
28 matches
Mail list logo
