From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265775AbUBJIsg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:48:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265776AbUBJIsg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:48:36 -0500 Received: from pool-64-222-172-33.man.east.verizon.net ([64.222.172.33]:53700 "EHLO samoyed.wuff.dhs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265775AbUBJIsd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:48:33 -0500 Subject: Re: HT CPU handling - 2.6.2 From: Hod McWuff To: Len Brown Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1076397803.4105.900.camel@dhcppc4> References: <1076391435.4103.730.camel@dhcppc4> <1076395641.2246.5.camel@siberian.wuff.dhs.org> <1076397803.4105.900.camel@dhcppc4> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1076402910.2577.3.camel@siberian.wuff.dhs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:48:30 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org OK then the heck with the flag... am I to understand that there is in fact a partial CPU on the die? (LAPIC but no other logic?) Or is the second CPU instance there and real but administratively disabled? You've been very helpful Mr. Brown but I fear you might be under orders to tell me the party line. I want to know, regardless of disabled flags and burnt wires, what if any vestige of a second CPU exists on that particular piece of silicon in my other room. On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 02:23, Len Brown wrote: > no. the disabled flag is a reflection of wires inside the processor. > You could pop the cap and ion-beam edit the die, or buy an HT-enabled > processor. The later would be somewhat more cost effective;-) > > cheers, > -Len > > On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 01:47, Hod McWuff wrote: > > OK, the BIOS setting is disabled and cannot be changed, so the message > > won't get cleaned up that way. I could of course disable SMP in my > > kernel, but that really doesn't address anything. > > > > What I'm wondering is, if the second "CPU" appears to exist but is > > merely marked disabled, who cares about the BIOS flag? Why couldn't the > > disable flag be cleared or ignored? > > > > Couldn't the ACPI/APIC/SMP code just cope with the odd LAPIC ID somehow? > > > > On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 00:37, Len Brown wrote: > > > Your BIOS is reporting the 2nd CPU as disabled, and telling us that it > > > has LAPIC id 0x81 = 129. The ACPI table code prints this out and > > > registers the processor anyway, but that chokes because the LAPIC ID is > > > way out of bounds. > > > > > > I'm thinking that ACPI should not register a processor that the BIOS > > > marked as disabled... > > > > > > What should you do? Apparently you've got an HT-enabled platform, BIOS, > > > and OS, but do not have an HT-enabled processor. Your choices are to > > > disable HT in the BIOS SETUP to clean up this message, or plug in an > > > HT-enabled processor. > > > > > > cheers, > > > -Len > > > > > > On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 15:44, Hod McWuff wrote: > > > > I've got a 2.0A GHz P4, advertised as non-hyperthread, that seems to > > > > be > > > > reporting the presence of a second CPU. It also seems to be disabled > > > > by > > > > setting bit 7 of its ID. I've tried compiling with support for 130 > > > > CPU's > > > > and nothing changed. What would have to be done to get this disabled > > > > CPU half back online? > > > > > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee00000 > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug Processor #0 15:2 APIC version 20 > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x81] > > > > disabled) > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug Processor #129 invalid (max 16) > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x01] dfl dfl lint[0x1]) > > > > Feb 9 04:45:03 pug ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x02] dfl dfl lint[0x1]) > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > > > > linux-kernel" in > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/