.
root: /etc/rc.d/sysctl: WARNING: sysctl machdep.hyperthreading_allowed does not
exist.
...
So isn't hyperthreading not available anymore in FreeBSD 9?
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/release/9.0.0/UPDATING?r1=222852&r2=222853&;
Seems to imply HT is enabled by default and new sysctl
ctl: WARNING: sysctl machdep.hyperthreading_allowed does
> > not exist.
> > ...
> >
> > So isn't hyperthreading not available anymore in FreeBSD 9?
I'm not sure what you mean by this double negative. If you mean "Is
hyperthreading still available on FreeBSD
etc/rc.d/sysctl: WARNING: sysctl machdep.hyperthreading_allowed does
> not exist.
> ...
>
> So isn't hyperthreading not available anymore in FreeBSD 9?
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/release/9.0.0/UPDATING?r1=222852&r2=222853&;
Seems to imply HT is enabled by default and n
x27;t hyperthreading not available anymore in FreeBSD 9?
Regards,
Marco
--
If you want me to be a good little bunny
just dangle some carats in front of my nose.
-- Lauren Bacall
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:15:02 -0600
Brett Glass wrote:
> At 01:55 PM 8/29/2011, Bruce Cran wrote:
>
> >Actually, the ULE scheduler does know about HyperThreading and the
> >topology of such CPUs. I don't know what it does with the
> >information, but it probably
On 29/08/2011 23:15, Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:55 PM 8/29/2011, Bruce Cran wrote:
Actually, the ULE scheduler does know about HyperThreading and the
topology of such CPUs. I don't know what it does with the
information, but it probably works to optimize cache usage etc.
Alas, during a r
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Brett Glass wrote
> Alas, during a recent kernel build, I used the -j2 command line option in
> "make" and watched as the scheduler repeatedly assigned two instances of cc
> (the most CPU-intensive program) to the same core.
>
> During that process, I also watched
At 01:55 PM 8/29/2011, Bruce Cran wrote:
Actually, the ULE scheduler does know about HyperThreading and the
topology of such CPUs. I don't know what it does with the
information, but it probably works to optimize cache usage etc.
Alas, during a recent kernel build, I used the -j2 co
On 29/08/2011 18:24, Brett Glass wrote:
With hyperthreading, the FreeBSD scheduler simply acts as if there are
4 CPUs. Each "CPU" gets clock interrupts (which add overhead), and the
scheduler is naive about the fact that two of the "CPUs" are not
separate chips and could be
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:24:08 -0500, Brett Glass wrote:
With hyperthreading, the FreeBSD scheduler simply acts as if there are 4
CPUs. Each "CPU" gets clock interrupts (which add overhead), and the
scheduler is naive about the fact that two of the "CPUs" are not
separat
I'm building a few systems using dual core Atom processors, and
have noted that when the system boots up it says it has four CPUs:
2 actual cores and 2 virtual ones. But performance is a bit
unsteady, and I'm wondering if it's going to be better to turn
hyperthread
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:24:48 -0400 Pierre-Luc Drouin
wrote:
>Could someone explain me in which cases it is useful to enable
>hyperthreading on a machine running FreeBSD 8.0 and in which other cases
>it is not a good idea? Is that possible that hyperthreading is
>disadvantageou
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Could someone explain me in which cases it is useful to enable
> hyperthreading on a machine running FreeBSD 8.0 and in which other cases
> it is not a good idea? Is that possible that hyperthreading is
> disadvantageous unless the
Hi,
Could someone explain me in which cases it is useful to enable
hyperthreading on a machine running FreeBSD 8.0 and in which other cases
it is not a good idea? Is that possible that hyperthreading is
disadvantageous unless the number of active (non-sleeping) threads is
really high?
For
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:20 -0400, APseudoUtopia wrote:
> Am I correct to assume that the above means that HTT is enabled?
> There is nothing in my loader.conf, sysctl.conf, or kernel config file
> related to hyperthreading.
Yes, you are correct. Try:
% sudo ps gauxww
Or
% sudo top
Hello,
I'm running FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE on a dual-core Xeon. It has a custom
compiled SMP kernel, ACPI enabled, with the ULE scheduler.
I've been looking into HyperThreading, and I've come to the conclusion
that I should not use it. I've been told that HTT is disabled by
def
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>
>> Atom's HTT is actually pretty good - I saw up to 25% more performance
>> simply by using multithreading in 7zip's compression benchmark (on
>> WinXP, though). Of course, OTOH it uses about that much more transistors
>> on the CPU die so it's not exactly free performance
For example, even though Windows 2000
> supports multiple CPUs, Intel does not recommend that hyper-threading
> be enabled under that operating system.
> */
>
> I found this in wikipedia at the following link
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
Yes, system respond variou
Atom's HTT is actually pretty good - I saw up to 25% more performance
simply by using multithreading in 7zip's compression benchmark (on
WinXP, though). Of course, OTOH it uses about that much more transistors
on the CPU die so it's not exactly free performance.
really that much? i thought mayb
>>
> as far as i know, just enabling smp will allow ht to function. also, i don't
> know if intel changed ht in the new atom processor, they could have.
>>
is FreeBSD's smp special in some way that it would be the exception to
the following statement.
I know there was a lot of changes made in the n
Brett Glass wrote:
> Which raises a question: What's the status of FreeBSD's support for
> hyperthreading? As far as I know, after it was revealed that some
> processes on a machine with hyperthreading could "spy" on others, and
Yes, but that is a hardware proble
data to arrive when it encounters a cache
miss. So, hyperthreading may make sense on this kind of processor as compared
to one with out-of-order execution.
Which raises a question: What's the status of FreeBSD's support for
hyperthread
of time waiting for data to arrive when it
encounters a cache miss. So, hyperthreading may make sense on this
kind of processor as compared to one with out-of-order execution.
Which raises a question: What's the status of FreeBSD's support for
hyperthreading? As far as I know, after it w
ata to
arrive when it encounters a cache miss. So, hyperthreading may make
sense on this kind of processor as compared to one with out-of-order execution.
Which raises a question: What's the status of FreeBSD's support for
hyperthreading? As far as I know, after it was revealed that som
In response to Dinesh Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:29:32 +0200, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
>
> > Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > i have machune with intel's CPU with hyperthreading.
> > >
> > > it is detected right, but only f
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:29:32 +0200, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > i have machune with intel's CPU with hyperthreading.
> >
> > it is detected right, but only first thread is ever used.
> >
> > top shows at least 50% idle no matter
On 2007-11-18 11:43, Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>> To enable hyperthreadi
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
To enable hyperthreading, try setting the following in /etc/sysctl.conf:
machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1
and reboot (or exec
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
To enable hyperthreading, try setting the following in /etc/sysctl.conf:
machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1
and reboot (or execute sysctl machdep.hyperthreading_allowed
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
i have machune with intel's CPU with hyperthreading.
it is detected right, but only first thread is ever used.
top shows at least 50% idle no matter what i run!
what's wrong?
root@:/usr62/src/sys/amd64/compile/serwer.tensor.gdynia.pl
Timecounter "i
i have machune with intel's CPU with hyperthreading.
it is detected right, but only first thread is ever used.
top shows at least 50% idle no matter what i run!
what's wrong?
root@:/usr62/src/sys/amd64/compile/serwer.tensor.gdynia.pl
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193
On Saturday 19 May 2007 12:31:50 JD Bronson wrote:
> machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1
That did it thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL
At 12:19 PM 5/19/2007 -0400, Dantavious wrote:
Hi.
It seems to me (From the limited knowledge that I have!) that my machine is
not hyperthreading. I have done the following.
maybe /etc/sysctl.conf:
machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1
?
-JD
Hi.
It seems to me (From the limited knowledge that I have!) that my machine is
not hyperthreading. I have done the following.
1. Ensured that the capability is enabled in the BIOS.
2. FreeBSD recongizes the capaiblity
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz (1866.74-MHz 686-class CPU
You Wrote:
> I wonder if I could benefit from these features when running AMD64
> version. On i386 install, I just enabled SMP and the OS happilly
> reported 2 logical cpus, however, I'm not sure how I will build a
> particular application to benefit from this hyperthreadin
version.
On i386 install, I just enabled SMP and the OS happilly reported 2 logical
cpus, however, I'm not sure how I will build a particular
application to benefit from this hyperthreading thing. There are certain
knobs when configuring a particular application that says
--enable-pthreads.
> > I have benchmarks comparing dual-core 939
> > socket systems against dual
> > 940 socket systems here:
> >
> http://cracauer-forum.cons.org/forum/crabench.html
>
> Just a question about your benches, any reason
> you just don't ship files to /dev/null? That was
> always the standard in unix to
--- Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Danial Thom
> wrote:
>
> > Wait, I can "download music, run a virus
> scanner
> > and play games" all at the same time? wow.
> Wait,
> > I can do that anyway. Does each core have its
> own
> > hard drive too?
> >
> >
--- Martin Cracauer wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at
> 12:52:24PM -0400:
> >
> > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better
> (can't believe that they took
> > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I
> know that Hyper
On 1/12/06, Gerard Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > No kidding. But I doubt the competence of people that buy computers
> > from big name manufacturers, unless they bought it maybe for server
> > applications, large scale deployment of machines, et
Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No kidding. But I doubt the competence of people that buy computers
> from big name manufacturers, unless they bought it maybe for server
> applications, large scale deployment of machines, etc. Gotta love
> their little Flash graphics with the "bal
Marc G. Fournier wrote on Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:52:24PM -0400:
>
> I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
> a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
> definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dua
On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Danial Thom wrote:
Wait, I can "download music, run a virus scanner
and play games" all at the same time? wow. Wait,
I can do that anyway. Does each core have its own
hard drive too?
I wonder how many meetings they had before they
came up with that "description" of
t; wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is
> better
> > > (can't believe that they took
> > > > a step back) ... but, is how does it
> rate? I
> > > know that HyperThreading is
> > > > definitely !=
(can't believe that they took
> > > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I
> > know that HyperThreading is
> > > definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does
> > Dual Core get?
> >
> > There is extensive evidence (google for that,
> > plea
Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10 Jan 2006, at 18:06, Andrew P. wrote:
> >
> > By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions.
>
> We got those in 2005: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml
That's a little different than what Andrew was describing
--- "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better
> (can't believe that they took
> > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate?
On 10 Jan 2006, at 18:06, Andrew P. wrote:
By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions.
We got those in 2005: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/
index.xml
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:52 AM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't be
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took a
step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
Dual Core = two physical CPUs, possibly sharing L2 cache.
HyperThreadin
On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
> a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
> definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual C
I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took
a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is
definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://w
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:02:39 +, dgmm wrote:
> From my point of view, using SMP with a single HT processor is a waste of
> time
> unless you routinely run multiple programmes which require an approximately
> equal amount of CPU time or you need to keep about half of your CPU time free
> for
On Monday 07 November 2005 18:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've just installed 6.0-RELASE and am trying to get SMP to work (I have af
> Pentium 4 with HT). So I've compiled the kernel with 'options SMP' and
> according to dmesg the two CPUs are found:
>
> FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:16:19 -1000, Robert Marella wrote:
> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/CERT/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-05:09.htt.asc
>
That did the trick, I think :)
--
regards,
Jeppe W. Larsen
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
__
re are 2 CPUs, but only 1 active and
> > > SMP doesnt seem to be disabled:
> > >
> > > kern.smp.cpus: 2
> > > kern.smp.disabled: 0
> > > kern.smp.active: 1
> >
> > sysctl -d kern.smp.active
> > kern.smp.active: Number of Auxillary Pr
d kern.smp.active
> kern.smp.active: Number of Auxillary Processors (APs) that were
> successfully started
>
> This is the number of _extra_ CPUs, which chould be 1.
>
> Roland
If hyperthreading is working the ouput of 'top' should have a C column
and will show eith
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 07:53:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've just installed 6.0-RELASE and am trying to get SMP to work (I have af
> Pentium 4 with HT). So I've compiled the kernel with 'options SMP' and
> according to dmesg the two CPUs are found:
>
> FreeBSD/SMP: Multiproces
Hi
I've just installed 6.0-RELASE and am trying to get SMP to work (I have af
Pentium 4 with HT). So I've compiled the kernel with 'options SMP' and
according to dmesg the two CPUs are found:
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs
cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0
cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1
But
Deepak Naidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have installed FreeBSD 5.4 on Dell PowerEdge
> 1750, which has Xeon processors.
>
> I have recompiled the kernel with SMP support(should I
> add any option in Kernelconf file to disable it)
>
> When using top command I c 0123, processor it seems
>
Hi,
I have installed FreeBSD 5.4 on Dell PowerEdge
1750, which has Xeon processors.
I have recompiled the kernel with SMP support(should I
add any option in Kernelconf file to disable it)
When using top command I c 0123, processor it seems
hyper threading is enabled.
How do I disable it, or
niversity of California. All rights
> reserved.
> > FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p12 #1: Fri Sep 30 17:05:26 CST 2005
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/www
> > Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz
> > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 1.80GHz (1794.1
CST 2005
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/www
> Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz
> CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 1.80GHz (1794.19-MHz 686-class CPU)
> Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf27 Stepping = 7
>
> Features=0xbfebfbff
>Hyperthreading:
On 10/6/05, hshh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/05, Andrew P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/1/05, hshh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a dual XEON smp box. There is option about disable HTT in bios,
> but
> > > it can't work. It's still display 4 cpu in my OS.
>
On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Pranav Peshwe wrote:
Hello,
I have an Intel P4 2.8Ghz processor with Hyperthreading
(HT).
The dmesg displays a message saying HT is present and 2 logical
CPUs present.I tried toggling the setting in BIOS but no difference.
How does the FBSD(v5.4
Hello,
I have an Intel P4 2.8Ghz processor with Hyperthreading (HT).
The dmesg displays a message saying HT is present and 2 logical
CPUs present.I tried toggling the setting in BIOS but no difference.
How does the FBSD(v5.4 stable) kernel deal with HT ? Do the internal
workings
On 10/1/05, hshh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a dual XEON smp box. There is option about disable HTT in bios, but
> it can't work. It's still display 4 cpu in my OS.
> Can I disablt HTT in OS directly? I am running FreeBSD 4.11.
>
> Regards.
>
On 2005-10-01 18:19, hshh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a dual XEON smp box. There is option about disable HTT in bios, but
> it can't work. It's still display 4 cpu in my OS.
> Can I disablt HTT in OS directly? I am running FreeBSD 4.11.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think 4.X doesn't have any s
Hi,
I have a dual XEON smp box. There is option about disable HTT in bios, but
it can't work. It's still display 4 cpu in my OS.
Can I disablt HTT in OS directly? I am running FreeBSD 4.11.
Regards.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:54:20 -0700, in sentex.lists.freebsd.questions
you wrote:
>At 05:33 PM 4/25/2005, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>>I would start by turning off Hyperthreading as
>>that only really works if you are using the ULE scheduler and thats
>>broken under RELENG_5.
>
At 05:33 PM 4/25/2005, Mike Tancsa wrote:
I would start by turning off Hyperthreading as
that only really works if you are using the ULE scheduler and thats
broken under RELENG_5.
I haven't noticed this mentioned before. Is using an SMP kernel on a
system with a single P4 and SCHED_4BSD a
Ed Stover writes:
> don't you need apic as well ?
> device apic# I/O APIC
I didn't have to add it on my machine, so presumably it is there by
default in the generic configuration.
--
Anthony
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mai
don't you need apic as well ?
device apic# I/O APIC
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 13:42 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> faisal gillani writes:
>
> > Well the output of my dmesg command is only showing 1
> > processor , HT is enabled in bios , & working on
> > windows XP on the same
faisal gillani writes:
> Well the output of my dmesg command is only showing 1
> processor , HT is enabled in bios , & working on
> windows XP on the same PC.
> what can be wrong ? is there anyway to enable it ?
Recompile the kernel with
options SMP
You should then see the second logical proc
Well the output of my dmesg command is only showing 1
processor , HT is enabled in bios , & working on
windows XP on the same PC.
what can be wrong ? is there anyway to enable it ?
thanks
*º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ Allah-hu-Akber*º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤
God is the Greatest
__
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:38:08 +0100 Andrea Venturoli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>> Andrea Venturoli writes:
>>
>> AV> Not exactly the same algorithm and on different set of data.
>>
>> But similar machine instructions, perhaps?
>
>Yes, both numerical computations.
>
> The other AMD processor, on my server, dramatically overheated for 8-12
> hours at a time (process stuck in a loop--I never found out why). It
> damaged something that failed intermittently at first (segment
> violations in the kernel and in daemons that should never have such
> problems), then
Andrea Venturoli writes:
AV> I've come to the same conclusion. Still I can't put this together with
AV> 100% load on both processors. If, as someone said, there is only one
AV> FPU, *how* are these figures coming out???
The operating system tracks a dispatch of a processor into a process
thread.
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Andrea Venturoli writes:
AV> Not exactly the same algorithm and on different set of data.
But similar machine instructions, perhaps?
Yes, both numerical computations.
Basically one thread would model geometry and the other would mesh it.
Frequent stall would arise, as the t
Olivier Nicole writes:
ON> It was dead for good, well it is still dead as a matter of fact :)
The AMD processor on my XP system overheated and stalled a few times, before
I realized that the (brand-new) fan had failed. It still runs okay now,
though, with a reliable fan.
The other AMD processor
Andrea Venturoli writes:
AV> Not exactly the same algorithm and on different set of data.
But similar machine instructions, perhaps?
AV> Yes.
Just the contention for the FPU alone might have had the effect of
single-threading the workload. That plus the SMP overhead might give
you a zero or ne
> Did it start up when you replaced the fan, or was it gone for good?
It was dead for good, well it is still dead as a matter of fact :)
> I thought all the boxed P4 processors came with their own fan, so there
> should never be a case in which a PC is sold with a P4 but no CPU fan.
So did I, so
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Where these computations in which all threads were doing pretty much the
same thing?
Not exactly the same algorithm and on different set of data.
And was it floating-point?
Yes.
(Doesn't the processor have just one FPU, or something like that?)
I don't really know (I made
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:11:27 +0100 Anthony Atkielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Scott Bennett writes:
>
>SB> I notice that the 5.2.1 boot messages refer to the second core as an
>SB> AP, which I'm guessing stands for "attached processor". If that
>SB> guess is correct, then it means that onl
off-topic, but...
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:43:54AM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> AV> BTW, an old AMD 2000 XP+ would in any case almost outperform a P4 3GHz,
> AV> but that's another story.
>
> An AMD processor will also melt or catch fire if the CPU fan fails,
> whereas an Intel processor w
Subhro writes:
S> This *used* to be true. I am using a AMD64 3000+ and the idle
S> temperature is 28C. The room temp is around 12-14C. After asking this
S> kid to crunch FPs for over 16 hrs, the processor temperature rose to
S> only 38C. I am not using any special cooling gears, just the stock
S>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 6:14
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Hyperthreading hurts 5.3?
>
> Andrea Venturoli
Olivier Nicole writes:
ON> Not always true, I had a P4 1.5 die on me for lack of fan.
I understood that all recent Intel processors will first slow the clock
and then halt completely if the die temperature rises too much, but
there may be exceptions (or perhaps some processors run so hot that the
> An AMD processor will also melt or catch fire if the CPU fan fails,
> whereas an Intel processor won't. I found this out the hard way, and so
Not always true, I had a P4 1.5 die on me for lack of fan.
Now what was tha company selling a new box with no fan on the CPU is
another story...
Olivier
Scott Bennett writes:
SB> I notice that the 5.2.1 boot messages refer to the second core as an
SB> AP, which I'm guessing stands for "attached processor". If that
SB> guess is correct, then it means that only the first core is able to
SB> perform certain functions, and the AP core has to get the f
On Jan 12, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Timothy Luoma wrote:
ps - thanks to all who responded. I'm going to disable HT, boot to
FreeBSD and try another large file transfer and see if I see the large
delays. If no, I'll copy the files I need off the XP drive and
reinstall XP.
Ok, well I disabled HT and s
Andrea Venturoli writes:
AV> FWIW I tried numerical computations on a P4 with HT enabled: I expected
AV> using 2 threads might give *at least slightly* better results, but I
AV> could come to the conclusion that with 1, 2 or 4 threads the performance
AV> gain (or loss) was exactly zero.
Where the
; threads running concurrently in the same address space. If anyone reading
>SB> this knows the details of how this is handled in these chips, please post
>them
>SB> here.
>
>>From what you say and from what I've read today, it sounds like
>hyperthreading comes cl
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
From what you say and from what I've read today, it sounds like
hyperthreading comes close to providing two separate processors for
heterogenous system loads (where each hyperthread is using slightly
different processor resources at any given instant), but it may no
On 2005-01-12 19:23, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas writes:
>
> GK> The 'separate file' is NOTES. This file is actually the complete
> GK> reference of options that the kernel supports, so it's not like the SMP
> GK> option is hidden or something.
>
> I must have
2793.01-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf33 Stepping = 3
Features=0xbfebfbff
Hyperthreading: 2 logical CPUs
If my sig11 issue doesn't recur now that HTT is off I'll go back to a
non-SMP kernel and confirm there are no issues there too.
Bryan
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:29:01 +1300, Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:02:37AM -0500, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
> > By default the system will detect a HTT processor, but can only launch
> > the second 'virtual' CPU core if you recompile the kernel with the SMP
> > o
Giorgos Keramidas writes:
GK> The 'separate file' is NOTES. This file is actually the complete
GK> reference of options that the kernel supports, so it's not like the SMP
GK> option is hidden or something.
I must have a magic special version of FreeBSD:
# cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf
# grep SMP *
On 2005-01-12 18:41, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas writes:
>
> GK> You need to enable SMP too, to allow the FreeBSD kernel to use the
> GK> second (hyper-threaded) CPU.
>
> I found it, in a file called SMP. Why is the SMP option tucked away in
> a separate file?
ome way to share TLBs for the case of two
SB> threads running concurrently in the same address space. If anyone reading
SB> this knows the details of how this is handled in these chips, please post
them
SB> here.
From what you say and from what I've read today, it sounds li
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
