Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
on 06/09/2010 20:12 Olivier Smedts said the following: Here is mine : no difference before and after the patch : Thanks! [snip] The only thing I noticed is this, after the patch : ada1 at ahcich1 bus 0 scbus1 target 0 lun 0 ada1: SAMSUNG HD161HJ JF100-19 ATA-7 SATA 2.x device ada1: 300.000MB/s transfers (SATA 2.x, UDMA6, PIO 8192bytes) ada1: Command Queueing enabled ada1: 152627MB (312581808 512 byte sectors: 16H 63S/T 16383C) SMP: AP CPU #1 Launched!cd0 at ahcich2 bus 0 scbus2 target 0 lun 0 cd0: LITE-ON DVDRW LH-20A1S 9L08 Removable CD-ROM SCSI-0 device cd0: 150.000MB/s transfers (SATA 1.x, UDMA5, ATAPI 12bytes, PIO 8192bytes) cd0: Attempt to query device size failed: NOT READY, Medium not present SMP: AP CPU #3 Launched! SMP: AP CPU #2 Launched! Trying to mount root from zfs:tank/freebsd Before the patch, all the SMP: AP CPU #X Launched! were correctly displayed, with carriage returns. Yes, I use options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128. And I don't know if that's related to the patch. No, it's not related, it's a probabilistic thing. Those Launched! messages are printed from threads running on freshly started APs and thus are executed truly parallel to BSP. BTW, is the above snippet from /var/log/messages or from actual console (e.g. ttyv0)? If it's from message, then could you please check how it looks on the console? -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
on 06/09/2010 21:53 Chip Camden said the following: FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs Thanks -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
on 29/08/2010 12:25 Andriy Gapon said the following: The below patch is against sources in FreeBSD tree, it should be applied either to sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c or sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c depending on the desired architecture: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/intel-cpu-topo.diff I see that I am not getting as many testers as I expected, so I am going to commit the patch. You still have a short while to either objectively object to the patch or to voluntary test it :-) -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:17:42PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 29/08/2010 12:25 Andriy Gapon said the following: The below patch is against sources in FreeBSD tree, it should be applied either to sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c or sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c depending on the desired architecture: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/intel-cpu-topo.diff I see that I am not getting as many testers as I expected, so I am going to commit the patch. You still have a short while to either objectively object to the patch or to voluntary test it :-) I would gladly assist in testing this, except there doesn't appear to be an authoritative statement that it will apply to RELENG_8; when I see WIP, I assume -CURRENT/HEAD only. Let me know, since all the systems I have are Intel multi-core. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
on 06/09/2010 15:23 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:17:42PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 29/08/2010 12:25 Andriy Gapon said the following: The below patch is against sources in FreeBSD tree, it should be applied either to sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c or sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c depending on the desired architecture: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/intel-cpu-topo.diff I see that I am not getting as many testers as I expected, so I am going to commit the patch. You still have a short while to either objectively object to the patch or to voluntary test it :-) I would gladly assist in testing this, except there doesn't appear to be an authoritative statement that it will apply to RELENG_8; when I see WIP, I assume -CURRENT/HEAD only. patch -C is much better than any statement :) Let me know, since all the systems I have are Intel multi-core. Yes, the patch should be applicable to stable/8 without any issues. -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:56:01PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 06/09/2010 15:23 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:17:42PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 29/08/2010 12:25 Andriy Gapon said the following: The below patch is against sources in FreeBSD tree, it should be applied either to sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c or sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c depending on the desired architecture: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/intel-cpu-topo.diff I see that I am not getting as many testers as I expected, so I am going to commit the patch. You still have a short while to either objectively object to the patch or to voluntary test it :-) I would gladly assist in testing this, except there doesn't appear to be an authoritative statement that it will apply to RELENG_8; when I see WIP, I assume -CURRENT/HEAD only. patch -C is much better than any statement :) Let me know, since all the systems I have are Intel multi-core. Yes, the patch should be applicable to stable/8 without any issues. Great, thanks! I'll be testing this out on two separate systems, both RELENG_8: - Supermicro X7SBA + Intel C2D E8400 (stepping 10) - Supermicro X7SBL-LN2 + Intel C2D E6600 (stepping 6) I'll make sure to provide what the topology looks like before and after. Is CPU-relevant dmesg output sufficient? -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
on 06/09/2010 16:12 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: Great, thanks! I'll be testing this out on two separate systems, both RELENG_8: - Supermicro X7SBA + Intel C2D E8400 (stepping 10) - Supermicro X7SBL-LN2 + Intel C2D E6600 (stepping 6) I'll make sure to provide what the topology looks like before and after. Is CPU-relevant dmesg output sufficient? If you mean something like the below, then yes. Thanks! CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7300 @ 2.66GHz (2653.35-MHz K8-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x10676 Family = 6 Model = 17 Stepping = 6 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0x8e39dSSE3,DTES64,MON,DS_CPL,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1 AMD Features=0x20100800SYSCALL,NX,LM AMD Features2=0x1LAHF TSC: P-state invariant [snip] FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 2 core(s) cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
Quoth Andriy Gapon on Monday, 06 September 2010: on 06/09/2010 15:23 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:17:42PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 29/08/2010 12:25 Andriy Gapon said the following: The below patch is against sources in FreeBSD tree, it should be applied either to sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c or sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c depending on the desired architecture: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/intel-cpu-topo.diff I see that I am not getting as many testers as I expected, so I am going to commit the patch. You still have a short while to either objectively object to the patch or to voluntary test it :-) I would gladly assist in testing this, except there doesn't appear to be an authoritative statement that it will apply to RELENG_8; when I see WIP, I assume -CURRENT/HEAD only. patch -C is much better than any statement :) Let me know, since all the systems I have are Intel multi-core. Yes, the patch should be applicable to stable/8 without any issues. -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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 OK, I'll try it out too then. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com| http://chipsquips.com pgpwSQVzMRSwU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 04:28:02PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 06/09/2010 16:12 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: Great, thanks! I'll be testing this out on two separate systems, both RELENG_8: - Supermicro X7SBA + Intel C2D E8400 (stepping 10) - Supermicro X7SBL-LN2 + Intel C2D E6600 (stepping 6) I'll make sure to provide what the topology looks like before and after. Is CPU-relevant dmesg output sufficient? If you mean something like the below, then yes. Thanks! [...] All done. Good news (I think): there's no difference in the CPU-related topology on either system with your patch, aside from kernel build date. The topologies are still detected correctly. In case you want them: Supermicro X7SBA Intel C2D E8400 (stepping 10) === Copyright (c) 1992-2010 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation. FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #0: Mon Sep 6 09:06:52 PDT 2010 r...@icarus.home.lan:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/X7SBA_RELENG_8_amd64 amd64 Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz (2992.52-MHz K8-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x1067a Family = 6 Model = 17 Stepping = 10 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0x408e3fdSSE3,DTES64,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE AMD Features=0x20100800SYSCALL,NX,LM AMD Features2=0x1LAHF TSC: P-state invariant real memory = 4294967296 (4096 MB) avail memory = 4112097280 (3921 MB) ACPI APIC Table: PTLTD APIC FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 2 core(s) cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 ioapic0 Version 2.0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard ioapic1 Version 2.0 irqs 24-47 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 ichwd module loaded acpi0: PTLTDXSDT on motherboard acpi0: [ITHREAD] acpi0: Power Button (fixed) Timecounter ACPI-fast frequency 3579545 Hz quality 1000 acpi_timer0: 24-bit timer at 3.579545MHz port 0x1008-0x100b on acpi0 cpu0: ACPI CPU on acpi0 cpu1: ACPI CPU on acpi0 Supermicro X7SBL-LN2 Intel C2D E6600 (stepping 6) == Copyright (c) 1992-2010 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation. FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #1: Mon Sep 6 07:59:49 PDT 2010 r...@gujoja.home.lan:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/X7SBL_RELENG_8_amd64 amd64 Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz (2394.01-MHz K8-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x6f6 Family = 6 Model = f Stepping = 6 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0xe3bdSSE3,DTES64,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM AMD Features=0x20100800SYSCALL,NX,LM AMD Features2=0x1LAHF TSC: P-state invariant real memory = 8589934592 (8192 MB) avail memory = 8261648384 (7878 MB) ACPI APIC Table: PTLTD APIC FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 2 core(s) cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 ioapic0 Version 2.0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 ichwd module loaded acpi0: PTLTDXSDT on motherboard acpi0: [ITHREAD] acpi0: Power Button (fixed) Timecounter ACPI-fast frequency 3579545 Hz quality 1000 acpi_timer0: 24-bit timer at 3.579545MHz port 0x1008-0x100b on acpi0 cpu0: ACPI CPU on acpi0 cpu1: ACPI CPU on acpi0 All other systems I have are C2D and C2Q-based, but I can't easily test on those given their production roles. If there's a particular Intel processor family/model you're interested in, let me know and I can dig around to see if I have access to one. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
on 06/09/2010 19:22 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 04:28:02PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 06/09/2010 16:12 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: Great, thanks! I'll be testing this out on two separate systems, both RELENG_8: - Supermicro X7SBA + Intel C2D E8400 (stepping 10) - Supermicro X7SBL-LN2 + Intel C2D E6600 (stepping 6) I'll make sure to provide what the topology looks like before and after. Is CPU-relevant dmesg output sufficient? If you mean something like the below, then yes. Thanks! [...] All done. Good news (I think): there's no difference in the CPU-related topology on either system with your patch, aside from kernel build date. The topologies are still detected correctly. In case you want them: Thanks a lot for the test! [test results snipped] All other systems I have are C2D and C2Q-based, but I can't easily test on those given their production roles. If there's a particular Intel processor family/model you're interested in, let me know and I can dig around to see if I have access to one. No particular models in mind. If you have systems with more complex topologies, like multiple physical packages or HTT enabled, I will be interested in seeing test results for those. Thanks again. -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
2010/9/6 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org: on 06/09/2010 19:22 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 04:28:02PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 06/09/2010 16:12 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: Great, thanks! I'll be testing this out on two separate systems, both RELENG_8: - Supermicro X7SBA + Intel C2D E8400 (stepping 10) - Supermicro X7SBL-LN2 + Intel C2D E6600 (stepping 6) I'll make sure to provide what the topology looks like before and after. Is CPU-relevant dmesg output sufficient? If you mean something like the below, then yes. Thanks! [...] All done. Good news (I think): there's no difference in the CPU-related topology on either system with your patch, aside from kernel build date. The topologies are still detected correctly. In case you want them: Thanks a lot for the test! Here is mine : no difference before and after the patch : FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #0 r212258M: Mon Sep 6 18:36:00 CEST 2010 r...@q.gid0.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/QUAD amd64 Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz (2999.87-MHz K8-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x10677 Family = 6 Model = 17 Stepping = 7 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0x8e3fdSSE3,DTES64,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1 AMD Features=0x20100800SYSCALL,NX,LM AMD Features2=0x1LAHF TSC: P-state invariant real memory = 2147483648 (2048 MB) avail memory = 2029350912 (1935 MB) ACPI APIC Table: A_M_I_ OEMAPIC FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 4 core(s) cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 cpu2 (AP): APIC ID: 2 cpu3 (AP): APIC ID: 3 The only thing I noticed is this, after the patch : ada1 at ahcich1 bus 0 scbus1 target 0 lun 0 ada1: SAMSUNG HD161HJ JF100-19 ATA-7 SATA 2.x device ada1: 300.000MB/s transfers (SATA 2.x, UDMA6, PIO 8192bytes) ada1: Command Queueing enabled ada1: 152627MB (312581808 512 byte sectors: 16H 63S/T 16383C) SMP: AP CPU #1 Launched!cd0 at ahcich2 bus 0 scbus2 target 0 lun 0 cd0: LITE-ON DVDRW LH-20A1S 9L08 Removable CD-ROM SCSI-0 device cd0: 150.000MB/s transfers (SATA 1.x, UDMA5, ATAPI 12bytes, PIO 8192bytes) cd0: Attempt to query device size failed: NOT READY, Medium not present SMP: AP CPU #3 Launched! SMP: AP CPU #2 Launched! Trying to mount root from zfs:tank/freebsd Before the patch, all the SMP: AP CPU #X Launched! were correctly displayed, with carriage returns. Yes, I use options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128. And I don't know if that's related to the patch. Cheers, Olivier [test results snipped] All other systems I have are C2D and C2Q-based, but I can't easily test on those given their production roles. If there's a particular Intel processor family/model you're interested in, let me know and I can dig around to see if I have access to one. No particular models in mind. If you have systems with more complex topologies, like multiple physical packages or HTT enabled, I will be interested in seeing test results for those. Thanks again. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Olivier Smedts _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) e-mail: oliv...@gid0.org - against HTML email vCards X www: http://www.gid0.org - against proprietary attachments / \ Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : ceux qui comprennent le binaire, et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas. ___ 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
Re: patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
Quoth Chip Camden on Monday, 06 September 2010: OK, I'll try it out too then. Here are the only differences before/after the patch on my system: 5c6 FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #50: Sun Sep 5 13:08:14 PDT 2010 --- FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #51: Mon Sep 6 09:10:35 PDT 2010 8c9 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU M 350 @ 2.27GHz (2261.01-MHz K8-class CPU) --- CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU M 350 @ 2.27GHz (2261.02-MHz K8-class CPU) 125c126 vboxdrv: fAsync=0 offMin=0x1b0 offMax=0x438 --- vboxdrv: fAsync=0 offMin=0x1b8 offMax=0x3e4 140d140 SMP: AP CPU #2 Launched! 141a142 SMP: AP CPU #2 Launched! I don't see what that last one is. Here's the complete new topology: CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU M 350 @ 2.27GHz (2261.02-MHz K8-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0x20652 Family = 6 Model = 25 Stepping = 2 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0x98e3bdSSE3,DTES64,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,POPCNT AMD Features=0x28100800SYSCALL,NX,RDTSCP,LM AMD Features2=0x1LAHF TSC: P-state invariant real memory = 4294967296 (4096 MB) avail memory = 3886858240 (3706 MB) ACPI APIC Table: _ASUS_ Notebook FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs FreeBSD/SMP: 1 package(s) x 2 core(s) x 2 SMT threads cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 cpu2 (AP): APIC ID: 4 cpu3 (AP): APIC ID: 5 ACPI Warning: 32/64X FACS address mismatch in FADT - 0xBADB7F40/0xBADD1D40, using 32 (20100331/tbfadt-586) ioapic0 Version 2.0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard I was getting that ACPI warning before, but I have no idea what it means. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com| http://chipsquips.com pgpmROhlHMwkV.pgp Description: PGP signature
patch for topology detection of Intel CPUs
[Reposted from stable@; edited] The below patch is against sources in FreeBSD tree, it should be applied either to sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c or sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c depending on the desired architecture: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/intel-cpu-topo.diff The patch is substantially based on the Junk-uk's patch, but with some changes and additions: - topo_prob_0x4() is rewritten so that it does APIC ID matching against masks as described in the Intel article. The code still heavily depends on the assumption of the uniform topology, it discovers number of cores in BSP package and number of threads in BSP core and extrapolates that to global topology. The difference with current code and Junk-uk's patch is that actual APIC ID matching is done as opposed to deriving counts purely from max. values. - topo_prob_0x4() is invoked for 1 = cpu_high 4 case as well as for 4 = cpu_high 11 case as done in the current code, but unlike Junk-uk's patch. The code should be able to properly handle that class of CPUs and either detect hyperthreading topology or fallback to one processor per package topology. - added a few comments that describe uniformity assumption, plus couple other useful things. - changed final fallback code, so that each logical CPU is considered to be in its own physical package as opposed to current code placing all logical CPUs as cores of a single package. The rest is Junk-uk's work. Concerns: - about my code: ilog2_round_pow2 name is ugly; looking for suggestions on a better name or re-arranging/writing that code, so that the function is not needed. - about current code: logical_cpus variable (don't confuse with cpu_logical) doesn't seem to be consistently used; e.g. it is not set at all by topo_probo_0xb(); also, the method of using it for setting logical_cpus_mask doesn't seem to be reliable - BSP may be missed. Reviews, comments and test reports are very welcome! Please test the patch if you have any problems with how CPU topology is reported by the current code. Please test even if everything is OK, to avoid regressions. Thanks! -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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
