From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: aq Subject: Re: [PATCH] xm --version Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:00:11 +0900 Message-ID: <9cde8bff0506070400708ee85@mail.gmail.com> References: Reply-To: aq Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Pratt Cc: Xen Dev List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 6/7/05, Ian Pratt wrote: > > Ian, i look at the xen source code, and looks like "noht" > > option is never used anywhere? also ht_per_core is always set > > to 1? does xen really support HyperThreading now ? (i doubt that) >=20 > Xen supports hyperthreading just fine, and even does initial domain > placement using an algorithm that understands it. >=20 > In fact, it looks like we effectively lost the option to ever disable > hyperthreading when the setup code got upgraded.=20 can you confirm that ht_per_core is also wrongly set? it is set (=3D1) at arch/x86/setup.c or arch/ia64/smpboot.c, but never changed. but this variable is used somewhere, and got reported in "xm info", for example. so all of its usage are also wrong when we use HT? (because in that case ht_per_core must be 2) >It would be nice if > part of your patch removed any reference to 'noht', including in the > documentation. fine, i will submit a patch on this problem. regards, aq