From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265683AbUBJHXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:23:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265695AbUBJHXa (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:23:30 -0500 Received: from fmr04.intel.com ([143.183.121.6]:52644 "EHLO caduceus.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265683AbUBJHX0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:23:26 -0500 Subject: Re: HT CPU handling - 2.6.2 From: Len Brown To: Hod McWuff Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1076395641.2246.5.camel@siberian.wuff.dhs.org> References: <1076391435.4103.730.camel@dhcppc4> <1076395641.2246.5.camel@siberian.wuff.dhs.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1076397803.4105.900.camel@dhcppc4> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 10 Feb 2004 02:23:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/