tesla-dev-bounces at opensolaris.org wrote: > Mark Haywood <> wrote: >> Mark Haywood wrote: >>> Li, Aubrey wrote: >>>> Hi Andrei, >>>> >>>> Andrei Dorofeev wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Aubrey, >>>>> >>>>> What version of the X8DTN BIOS are you using? I have filed >>>>> this issue back in February on premier.intel.com and it should've >>>>> been resolved by now. Do you see this with BIOS version 3059W? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, right, the version is 3059W! And this is the newest version. >>>> From the BIOS changelog, they tested windows, redhat linux, I'm not >>>> sure if they care about what solaris reported, :( >>>> >>>> >>>>> Don't give up on using _PSD because of this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I believe before NHM, _PSD is seldom implemented. Using the vendor >>>> specific CPU topology should be an acceptable way to build domain >>>> info. I admit I don't have the knowledge about the other CPU >>>> vendor, like SPARC and AMD, what's the benefit of using _PSD? >>>> Othering than introducing panic, ;) >>>> >>> >>> That's a very good question. What is the benefit of the _PSD? I >>> believe the _PSD was introduced to prevent Solaris and other >>> operating systems from having to do exactly what you are proposing >>> (i.e., introducing vendor specific details of processor state >>> domains into the operating system). The _PSD is supposed to define a >>> standard way for operating systems to digest the domain data. Unless >>> there is a really compelling reason to ignore the _PSD, I would >>> suggest that we continue to use it. >> >> How about a compromise. Since the _PSD often doesn't exist, we have >> to be able to determine the domains from the topology. Since we have >> to do this anyway, why don't we digest the _PSD and verify it >> afterwards using the topology. Why do this? So that we can report >> bad _PSDs to the BIOS developers so that the _PSDs become more >> reliable in the future. If a faulty _PSD is identified we can log a >> message to the console and use domains built from the topology. At >> some point it would be nice if we didn't have to continue >> determining the domains using topology. Sound reasonable? > That sounds a good suggestion. In early stage, we may need to reveal > bugs in BIOS implementation and push BIOS to behave correctly. > Eventually BIOS should be robust enough so we could switch to BIOS. > If we give up _PSD, it seems we are on the opposite side of > ACPI spect then. >
BIOS is not ACPI, hehe. If we use topology to check, why not use it at all? why we need to verify BIOS bug? Anyway, the suggestion works to me. Thanks, -Aubrey
