on 18/05/2011 20:04 Attilio Rao said the following: > 2011/5/18 Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com>: >> We use this internally at work still with a software config that uses 4BSD so >> as long as there is an equivalent tunable, that's good enough for us moving >> forward.
Can you please clarify which exactly tunable(s) do you use/need? Just turning hyperthreading on/off or more? (BTW, doing that via BIOS is inconvenient / not feasible?) BTW, I think that if we switch hyperthreading off then we better off not sending Start IPI to the logical CPUs at all. > Tunables are pretty much acceptable for this case. What is really broken is > the > on-the-fly ability to mark CPUs active/inactive and subsequent handovers. Yes, I completely agree. Static disabling of CPUs doesn't have any problems, and IMO, currently the best way to do it is with hint.lapic.X.disabled. > I thought Andriy attached a patch to the tree, but it doesn't seem so... > anyway, yes, I think that adding tunables for this is very reasonable and not > as dangerous as the current mechanism. I agree. I haven't sent a patch, because I don't have it yet :) I decided to solicit opinions before getting to hacking code. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
