| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080429102207.7f20f63c@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:22:07 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> Cc: "J.A. Magallón" <jamagallon@....com>, Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problems with -git14 On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:17:46 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote: > One point worth noting - is it a worry? Prior to that smpboot merge, > my Xeon booted the two HT siblings on one physical first, then the > two siblings on the other physical after - when i386, but alternated > them when x86_64. Since the merge, the x86_64 sequence is unchanged, > but the i386 sequence is now like x86_64. I prefer this consistency, > and I prefer the new sequence: booting with maxcpus=2 then uses the > independent physicals without HT sharing; but surprises in store? > this is how it always was supposed to be! At least this is how Intel specifies it to the BIOS vendors (but remember, it's the bios that pretty much sets the cpu order; some will be weird). Exactly for the maxcpus=2 reason... (and for systems where the cpu scheduler does load balancing "from 0 up" it also makes sense) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists