John Baldwin wrote:
On 07-Nov-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
Thanks, IRQ 16 was programmed as level, activelo, so it wasn't an
off by one error there. Grr.
I've seen, but I didn't found a bios option to set it to edge.
Is there anything I can do on my machine to fix the problem, or
On 07-Nov-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> Thanks, IRQ 16 was programmed as level, activelo, so it wasn't an
>> off by one error there. Grr.
>
> I've seen, but I didn't found a bios option to set it to edge.
> Is there anything I can do on my machine to fix the problem, or
>
John Baldwin wrote:
Thanks, IRQ 16 was programmed as level, activelo, so it wasn't an
off by one error there. Grr.
I've seen, but I didn't found a bios option to set it to edge.
Is there anything I can do on my machine to fix the problem, or
should Asus be notified for a bios update or ...?
Jens
On 07-Nov-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 07-Nov-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>
>>>Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>
John Baldwin wrote:
>On 07-Nov-2003 Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>>This looks similar to what I described in the "fwohci0 running wild"
>>thread. In both
. TSC clock: 2398855680 Hz
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz (2398.86-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9
Features=0xbfebfbff
Hyperthreading: 2 logical CPUs
real memory = 1072889856 (1023 MB)
Physical memory chunk(s):
0x1000 - 0x000
On 07-Nov-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>> On 07-Nov-2003 Lars Eggert wrote:
>>>
Jens Rehsack wrote:
> interrupt total rate
> irq1: atkbd0 512 2
> irq8: rtc
Lars Eggert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
On 07-Nov-2003 Lars Eggert wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
interrupt total rate
irq1: atkbd0 512 2
irq8: rtc 23419127
irq13: npx01
John Baldwin wrote:
On 07-Nov-2003 Lars Eggert wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
interrupt total rate
irq1: atkbd0 512 2
irq8: rtc 23419127
irq13: npx01 0
irq14: ata0
On 07-Nov-2003 Lars Eggert wrote:
> Jens Rehsack wrote:
>> interrupt total rate
>> irq1: atkbd0 512 2
>> irq8: rtc 23419127
>> irq13: npx01 0
>> irq14: ata0
Lars Eggert wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
interrupt total rate
irq1: atkbd0 512 2
irq8: rtc 23419127
irq13: npx01 0
irq14: ata0 4422 24
Jens Rehsack wrote:
interrupt total rate
irq1: atkbd0 512 2
irq8: rtc 23419127
irq13: npx01 0
irq14: ata0 4422 24
irq15: ata1
specified - using default frequency
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
Calibrating TSC clock ... TSC clock: 2398854804 Hz
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz (2398.85-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9
Feature
On 07-Nov-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recompiled my system today and when it came up again,
> it was terrible slow. Using top I've seen, that there're
> around 25% cpu-time is used to handle interrupts.
> The kernel was configured using SMP ('cause it's a HTT
> enabled CPU) and APIC. Set
Hi,
I recompiled my system today and when it came up again,
it was terrible slow. Using top I've seen, that there're
around 25% cpu-time is used to handle interrupts.
The kernel was configured using SMP ('cause it's a HTT
enabled CPU) and APIC. Setting machdep.hlt_logical_cpus
to 1 didn't change a
lenti wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> i built a kernel with APIC_IO and SMP for my p4 with hyperthreading.
>> when i try to boot the kernel it hangs during boot at:
>>
>> APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery
>>
>> doing
>>
>> while (read_intr_count(8) &
,
>
> i built a kernel with APIC_IO and SMP for my p4 with hyperthreading.
> when i try to boot the kernel it hangs during boot at:
>
> APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery
>
> doing
>
> while (read_intr_count(8) < 6)
> ; /* nothing */
>
> (sys/i38
hi,
i built a kernel with APIC_IO and SMP for my p4 with hyperthreading.
when i try to boot the kernel it hangs during boot at:
APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery
doing
while (read_intr_count(8) < 6)
; /* nothing */
(sys/i386/isa/clock.c:1030)
read_intr_count(8) return
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:26:42PM -0600, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
> Hi Brooks,
>
> Thanks for responding...
>
> However I'm confused by the terms used. Are you saying if I set it to 0, I
> would be using the processing power of all CPU's? I'm not sure how this
> halted comes in to play, cuz t
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.freebsd.current
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon With Hyperthreading enabled...
>
> --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott M. Likens wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 15:41, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:38:29PM -0700, Scott M. Likens wrote:
> > > Well friend of mine just landed a Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon with
> > > Hyperthread
On 13-Aug-2003 Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:33:57PM -0500, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
>> I think the valid settings are only 0 or 1, with the default being 1
>> which will disable all logical CPUs. If you want to enable the extra
>> logical CPUS, then set it to
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:35:14AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 13-Aug-2003 Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:33:57PM -0500, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
> >> I think the valid settings are only 0 or 1, with the default being 1
> >> which will disable all logical
On 13-Aug-2003 Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:35:14AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On 13-Aug-2003 Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:33:57PM -0500, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
>> >> I think the valid settings are only 0 or 1, with the
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 15:41, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:38:29PM -0700, Scott M. Likens wrote:
> > Well friend of mine just landed a Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon with
> > Hyperthreading Enabled, and yet I know there's a hyperthreading option
> > in 4.8-RELE
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:33:57PM -0500, Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
> I think the valid settings are only 0 or 1, with the default being 1
> which will disable all logical CPUs. If you want to enable the extra
> logical CPUS, then set it to 0 (zero). They will come online
> immediately.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:05:49PM -0600, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
> Hi Brooks,
>
> I'm curious, what should that option be set to if one does have an SMP
> kernel running on 2x 2.4Ghz Xeon Processors (Hyper thread enabled)
>
> Mine is currently set to
> machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
Set it to 0
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:38:29PM -0700, Scott M. Likens wrote:
> Well friend of mine just landed a Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon with
> Hyperthreading Enabled, and yet I know there's a hyperthreading option
> in 4.8-RELEASE but I don't see one at ALL in 5.1?
>
> am I suddenly bl
Well friend of mine just landed a Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon with
Hyperthreading Enabled, and yet I know there's a hyperthreading option
in 4.8-RELEASE but I don't see one at ALL in 5.1?
am I suddenly blind or do I need to cvsup to CURRENT to take proper
advantage?
I am aware of a few prob
Technical Staff
Industry Standard Servers
Hewlett-Packard Company
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott M. Likens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:19 PM
> To: Brooks Davis
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon With Hype
-
From: "Brooks Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.freebsd.current
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Dual P4 2.4Ghz Xeon With Hyperthreading enabled...
>
> --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposi
No doubt this has been answered before, but I have an asus p4pe with a 3.06
p4. Naturally, it is enabled in the bios. To enable hyperthreading do I
need to recompile my kernel with smp support, and if so...does this apply to
freebsd 5.1 release as well? (my friend wants to know
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:59:58AM -0600, David R. Colyer wrote:
> No doubt this has been answered before, but I have an asus p4pe with a 3.06
> p4. Naturally, it is enabled in the bios. To enable hyperthreading do I
> need to recompile my kernel with smp support, and if so...does t
No doubt this has been answered before, but I have an asus p4pe with a 3.06
p4. Naturally, it is enabled in the bios. To enable hyperthreading do I
need to recompile my kernel with smp support, and if so...does this apply to
freebsd 5.1 release as well? (my friend wants to know
ere
> you keep all the CPUs busy, it does help. Somewhat suprisingly,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] performs better with HTT enabled then without. The individual
> workunits take longer to process, but the overall throughput is better
> (4 workunits every 6hrs instead of 2 workunits every 4hrs)
Glenn Johnson wrote:
> Thanks. I had read the smp manual page. I know _how_ to enable HTT; I
> was wondering whether I _should_ enable it. It seems the answer is that
> it is not beneficial in its current state because the scheduler does not
> yet differentiate between physical and logical proce
In order to give some values to compare: I was recently
running an P4 3.06 GHz with Hyperthreading (actually it
was Linux, but I will repeat the tests with current
when I have time for such games :)
Running ubench 0.32 on this HTT enabled machine (i865PE)
showed some interesting details when
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 06:39:12PM -0500, Glenn Johnson wrote:
> Thanks. I had read the smp manual page. I know _how_ to enable HTT; I
> was wondering whether I _should_ enable it. It seems the answer is that
> it is not beneficial in its current state because the scheduler does not
> yet differ
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 05:46 PM, Doug White wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Glenn Johnson wrote:
I have a P4 processor on order that will support hyperthreading. I
was
wondering what the general opinion is on enabling HTT for FreeBSD-5
(current).
Thanks for any input.
He didn't as
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 03:46:47PM -0700, Doug White wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Glenn Johnson wrote:
>
> > I have a P4 processor on order that will support hyperthreading.
> > I was wondering what the general opinion is on enabling HTT for
> > FreeBSD-5 (current).
>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Glenn Johnson wrote:
> I have a P4 processor on order that will support hyperthreading. I was
> wondering what the general opinion is on enabling HTT for FreeBSD-5
> (current).
>
> Thanks for any input.
man 4 smp
See the machdep.hlt_logical_cpus sysctl.
I have a P4 processor on order that will support hyperthreading. I was
wondering what the general opinion is on enabling HTT for FreeBSD-5
(current).
Thanks for any input.
--
Glenn Johnson
USDA, ARS, SRRC Phone: (504) 286-4252
New Orleans, LA 70124 e-mail: [EMAIL
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Killing wrote:
> > Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
> > any useful work.
>
> Yep but the issue is that all the core admin tools are unaware of this and
> hence include the virtual cores in idle calcs etc making load monitoring
> impossi
there just checking sysctl is easy enough.
> Now is there any good reason why you need to keep the cpu disabled?
Its disabled by default due to performance reasons and we keep it that
way. We are talking hyperthreading, logical CPU's, not real physical CPU's.
Its quite easy to see if CP
Killing wrote this message on Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 18:47 +0100:
> I suppose the hurry is that basic utils that we use day to day like top
> and vmstat to monitor machine load cannot be trusted to give accurate
> info.
Actually, the basic tools ARE correct, there is a cpu sitting idle that
the sysa
> Well, hyperthreading can be disabled via a kernel directive, right?
>From what I've seen that was removed between 5.0 and 5.1 correct
me if Im wrong.
> > Which ever it needs someone to pick it up ASAP dont you think?
>
> Really? What's the hurry? Fre
orward?
> 1. Dont just use halt have a compile or other directive to disable them?
> 2. Update all tools to be halt aware?
>
> Personally I'd go with 2 all be it more work / ramifications on other 3rd party
> tools as it gives the benefit of also working when physical CPU's are h
- Original Message -
From: "Doug White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus:
> > machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
>
> Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
> any useful work.
Yep but the issue is that all the core admin tools are unaware
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Steven Hartland wrote:
> sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus:
> machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
any useful work.
> Relevant sections from dmesg:
> Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #0
> IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 -> irq 0
sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus:
machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
Relevant sections from dmesg:
Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #0
IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 -> irq 0
Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #1
Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #2
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs
cpu0 (BSP): apic id: 0, ve
On 26-Feb-2003 Trish Lynch wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26-Feb-2003 Slawek Zak wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm in the process of installing 5.0-RELEASE-p3 on a Dell PowerEdge
>> > 2600 server. It has two Hyp
Juli Mallett wrote:
> > > > Any thoughts? I attach full dmesg and mptable output. Kernel
> > > > config too.
> > >
> > > 5.0 doesn't support HyperThreading. The upcoming 5.1 and 4.8 releases
> > > will support it.
> >
> > it does
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:05:51PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > I'm in the process of installing 5.0-RELEASE-p3 on a Dell PowerEdge
> > 2600 server. It has two HyperThreading Xeon 2.4Ghz processors, but
> > HyperThreading is not working in FreeBSD. I guess that four
&
* De: Trish Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-26 ]
[ Subjecte: RE: HyperThreading not working? ]
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >
> > On 26-Feb-2003 Slawek Zak wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm in the
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 26-Feb-2003 Slawek Zak wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm in the process of installing 5.0-RELEASE-p3 on a Dell PowerEdge
> > 2600 server. It has two HyperThreading Xeon 2.4Ghz processors, but
> > HyperThreading is
On 26-Feb-2003 Slawek Zak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in the process of installing 5.0-RELEASE-p3 on a Dell PowerEdge
> 2600 server. It has two HyperThreading Xeon 2.4Ghz processors, but
> HyperThreading is not working in FreeBSD. I guess that four
> processors should be visi
Hi,
I'm in the process of installing 5.0-RELEASE-p3 on a Dell PowerEdge
2600 server. It has two HyperThreading Xeon 2.4Ghz processors, but
HyperThreading is not working in FreeBSD. I guess that four
processors should be visible in the system after boot. Yes - I've
enabled `Logical Proc
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> The HLT/clock interrupt issue is precisely what I describe in the
> idle_hlt comments in i386/i386/machdep.c (last July). I wish we had a
> better mechanism then the stupid IPI stuff, like a simple per-cpu
> latch/acknowledge level interrupt (softint), but w
:> The ideal situation would be to have as Matt (and the comment
:> actually) says a cpu mask of idle cpus and generate an IPI to wake up
:> CPUs sitting in HLT when something hits the runqueue, then you can
:> just hlt all of them and rely on the IPI to wake you up, or the next
:> timer
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 01:28:45PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > > > Or, as I explained in my previous post, only HLT the [virtual] CPU if
> > > > the other [virtual] CPU that is sharing the same execution & cache
> > > > units is not HLT'd itself. If the other one
Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > > Or, as I explained in my previous post, only HLT the [virtual] CPU if
> > > the other [virtual] CPU that is sharing the same execution & cache
> > > units is not HLT'd itself. If the other one is HLT'd, then not do the
> > > HLT.
> >
> > Actually, why is that? W
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:52:53AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > > Another solution would be to have a global mask of 'idle' cpus and send
> > > an IPI to them when a new KSE is scheduled on a no
Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:52:53AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > Another solution would be to have a global mask of 'idle' cpus and send
> > an IPI to them when a new KSE is scheduled on a non-idle cpu that would
> > simply serve to wakeup the HLT. IPIs are
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:52:53AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Another solution would be to have a global mask of 'idle' cpus and send
> an IPI to them when a new KSE is scheduled on a non-idle cpu that would
> simply serve to wakeup the HLT. IPIs are nasty, but there are large
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:48:17AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> The cache and most of the execution hardware is shared. The execution
> units can run something like 4 instructions per clock. If the "idle"
> logical core is in a spinloop, then it is generating instructions for
> execution, so you a
FLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,,ACC>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It has HTT set but it's only a 1.2GHz box and I heard somewhere that only
>> >> >> 2+ GHz P4's had hyperthreading. I noticed some MFCs to stable that
&
t; >> >> It has HTT set but it's only a 1.2GHz box and I heard somewhere that only
> >> >> 2+ GHz P4's had hyperthreading. I noticed some MFCs to stable that
> >> >> suggested hyperthreading support but I do not know if full hyperthreading
In the last episode (Jan 31), Don Bowman said:
> Thus the worst thing you could have would be a nop-loop with
> no stalls, which would squeeze the other to death.
I don't think this is possible, from looking at Intel's white papers.
> In practise I've found intel's numbers to be true, that the SM
utput is different, so
>> >> you'll have to modify the .cfg for gnuplot :)
>> >>
>> >> -Trish
>> > I have HTT for my CPU, is there any "hack" to the BIOS to enable HyperThreading?
>>
>> Having HTT does _not_ mean you actually
On 31-Jan-2003 Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> >> AT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,,ACC>
>> >>
>> >> It has HTT set but it's only a 1.2GHz box and I heard somewher
gnuplot :)
> >>
> >> -Trish
> > I have HTT for my CPU, is there any "hack" to the BIOS to enable HyperThreading?
>
> Having HTT does _not_ mean you actually have multiple cores in your physical CPU.
> You will see a separate line in your dmesg giving th
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> AT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,,ACC>
> >>
> >> It has HTT set but it's only a 1.2GHz box and I heard somewhere that only
> >> 2+ GHz P4's had hyperthreading. I not
be halted when they are not doing useful work.
>
> Ah, that makes sense. Are the two logical cpus shared 50-50?
Hyperthreading is also called symmetric multi-threading (hyperthread
is a trademark of intel, SMT is the general term).
The two logical cpu's are like a co-operative sched
On 31-Jan-2003 Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>:AFAIK, full hyperthreading support, as it is, has been merged to
>:-stable. It consists of a patch to recognize the virtual CPUs, so they
>:will be dealt with like any SMP system, as long as HTT is enabled on the
>:BIOS.
>:
>:-
s there any "hack" to the BIOS to enable HyperThreading?
Having HTT does _not_ mean you actually have multiple cores in your physical CPU.
You will see a separate line in your dmesg giving the number of cores per CPU
if you do. The BIOS really has nothing to do with this, it all comes
On 31-Jan-2003 Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>> :So, at the request of bmilekic, I ran netpipe on a hyperthreading box (non
>> :hyperthreading, I'll do when I can turn it off in BIOS next time I'm down
>> :there)
>> :...
>> :
>> :
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> Personally, I doubt that HTT will buy much on FreeBSD, apart from being
> buzzword compliant. I'd actually like a compile option or boot tunable so
> that it to be turned on or off (and treated like a regular Xeon SMP
> system). Single-physical-cpu syst
:The cache and most of the execution hardware is shared. The execution
:units can run something like 4 instructions per clock. If the "idle"
:logical core is in a spinloop, then it is generating instructions for
:execution, so you are dividing the execution resources between one context
:that is
: Why do you think that hlt-ing the CPU(s) when idle would actually
: improve performance in this case? My only suspicion is that perhaps
: this reduces scheduling on the auxiliary 'logical' (fake) CPUs,
: thereby indirectly reducing cache ping-ponging and abuse. I would
: imagine that both
Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:08:38AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> > :AFAIK, full hyperthreading support, as it is, has been merged to
> > :-stable. It consists of a patch to recognize the virtual CPUs, so they
> > :will be dealt
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:08:38AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :AFAIK, full hyperthreading support, as it is, has been merged to
> :-stable. It consists of a patch to recognize the virtual CPUs, so they
> :will be dealt with like any SMP system, as long as HTT is enabled on
:AFAIK, full hyperthreading support, as it is, has been merged to
:-stable. It consists of a patch to recognize the virtual CPUs, so they
:will be dealt with like any SMP system, as long as HTT is enabled on the
:BIOS.
:
:--
:Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
:Gerencia de Operacoes
> I have HTT for my CPU, is there any "hack" to the BIOS to enable
> HyperThreading?
>
You might try updating your BIOS.
Ken
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 01:45:56PM -0500, Trish Lynch wrote:
> I have the .dat's for you, unfortunately, the output is different, so
> you'll have to modify the .cfg for gnuplot :)
>
> -Trish
I have HTT for my CPU, is there any "hack" to the BIOS to enable HyperThr
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> Trish,
>
> Thanks for the tests, it would be good to also get results with
> hyperthreading turned off. However, I need you to pass the -o
> option to NPtcp and get an actual dat file, so that you can generate
>
Trish,
Thanks for the tests, it would be good to also get results with
hyperthreading turned off. However, I need you to pass the -o
option to NPtcp and get an actual dat file, so that you can generate
the graphs using the gnuplot config file I asked you to download.
Having
Matthew Dillon wrote:
:So, at the request of bmilekic, I ran netpipe on a hyperthreading box (non
:hyperthreading, I'll do when I can turn it off in BIOS next time I'm down
:there)
:...
:
:The results are here:
:
:http://bsdunix.net/performance
:
:all information on what command line
:So, at the request of bmilekic, I ran netpipe on a hyperthreading box (non
:hyperthreading, I'll do when I can turn it off in BIOS next time I'm down
:there)
:...
:
:The results are here:
:
:http://bsdunix.net/performance
:
:all information on what command line options I used is in the
So, at the request of bmilekic, I ran netpipe on a hyperthreading box (non
hyperthreading, I'll do when I can turn it off in BIOS next time I'm down
there)
however, I got a hint to turn machdep.cpu_idle_hlt on.
Dmesg: (With Hyperthreading)
CPU: Pentium 4 (1796.94-MHz 686-class CPU
88 matches
Mail list logo
