Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:19:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:19:44 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:42354 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:19:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:26:35 -0500 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Steffen Persvold Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Hugh Dickins , Jun Nakajima , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG?] Xeon with HyperThreading and linux-2.4.20-rc2 Message-ID: <20021120082635.C1498@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <20021120080422.A1498@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sp@scali.com on Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:27:20PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 976 Lines: 18 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:27:20PM +0100, Steffen Persvold wrote: > > Sure, the bios has this option (and it works). I just believed the 'noht' > option would disable it from a kernel perspective. I understand that if > the MP table lists 4 processors, the kernel must think it is 4 processors > and enable them. But what is the purpose of the 'noht' option ? If it is > to avoid scanning the ACPI table for CPUs, wouldn't it be less confusing > to call it something like 'acpismp=disable', since you apparently can't > disable the siblings anyway (when they are also listed in the MP table) ? in theory we can, at least with the O(1) scheduling infrastructure it's easy. it's just that nobody cared enough so far to do it - 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/