From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753743AbXDWIL4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:11:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753803AbXDWIL4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:11:56 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.179]:3213 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753743AbXDWILy (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:11:54 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=q5YW1+lTaS3U6HyPBfggsFzsiR2G9YjRIkfDxkjMBsTdoSnBQE+dMH4hE3c2XWquXZxSSiFNfmQgcW7yhdtWV3vUTV6T5OiZuQzE8SyVdmf28I/20xpkCAYBuZoNAsOwLXHzzDT4PCAHvt/JQVhd65P0WfoOyise1ASFJ1PhpLM= Message-ID: <653402b90704230111p50b72586te73c1288f12a0079@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:11:52 +0200 From: "Miguel Ojeda" To: "Luca Tettamanti" Subject: Re: [BUG? -rc7] SMP: Just one CPU activated: P4 3GHz HT Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "oliver pinter" , "Robert Hancock" In-Reply-To: <462BF4DF.7080401@shaw.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <462BF4DF.7080401@shaw.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/22/07, Luca Tettamanti wrote: > Probably the two siblings are enumerated only in ACPI tables. If you > disable ACPI the kernel won't be aware of the second "core". > > Luca > -- > "Su cio` di cui non si puo` parlare e` bene tacere". > Ludwig Wittgenstein > On 4/23/07, Robert Hancock wrote: > > You didn't enable ACPI, it's needed for almost all systems to detect HT > and also for many systems to detect multi-cores as well. > > Aside from that, in general I would say that on any modern x86 system > ACPI should always be enabled. In many cases it seems the BIOS code is > not tested much without ACPI anymore, so going without ACPI can be > problematic. > > -- > Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada > To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca > Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ > > Thanks all of you. It seems the problem is ACPI, however, should not it be noted in some way? Maybe at Documentation/smp.txt, maybe at the help section at CONFIG_SMP, maybe a "depends on ..." Or maybe CONFIG_SMP should enable some bits of the ACPI code needed to detect such additional cores. -- Miguel Ojeda http://maxextreme.googlepages.com/index.htm