kostikbel at gmail.com
Fri Mar 18 16:15:29 UTC 2011
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 05:51:27PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/03/2011 15:56 Kostik Belousov said the following:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 05:26:53PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > ...
> >> - set cputicker() has some design bugs. It assumes that the tick frequency
> >> is the same across all CPUs, but the TSC is per-CPU. I have an old SMP
> >> system with CPUs of different frequency that can demonstrate bugs from
> >> this.
> > We definitely do not support configurations with different models of
> > CPUs in SMP, this is what Simmetric is about. Different as in frequency
> > or stepping.
> Are there any fundamental reasons for us to not support that configuration in
> situations where hardware and BIOS (in x86 case) happen to support it?
> I am personally more interested in non-uniform topologies like one package having
> two cores and another having four.
We do not handle CPU errata/quirks individually per-core. I think that we
assume that all cores have the same stepping and thus require the same
workarounds, if any, as BSP. Also, I think tsc calibration is done
only on BSP, but I may be wrong there.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20110318/f18e2a14/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-hackers