From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <74906ae59521f518523a5004b20554ce@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:59:35 -0500
From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Van Jacobsen's network stack restructure
In-Reply-To: <74a45e49e13d8e3ffbb691bd8322a00c@collyer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fa81feec-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

we've already bumped into this, some motherboards with intel
hyperthreaded processors have a bios mp table and some don't.
when i started the amd64 port i decided to not bother about
the mp stuff for the moment and once it was working then do the
mp stuff anew (it is ~10 years old and crufty) and not rely on
the bios. i'm about ready to do that now and it should cover
both intel and amd processors.

--jim

On Fri Feb 10 20:26:43 EST 2006, geoff@collyer.net wrote:
> > (BTW, can plan 9 actually use multi-core processors?)
> 
> In principle, yes, since they are just shared-memory multiprocessors
> packaged more compactly than previously.
> 
> Having said that, I don't know if Intel and AMD did the obvious thing
> and just populated the MP table appropriately or whether they felt
> compelled to gratuitously do things differently because the word
> `core' is spelled differently than the word `processor', thus
> necessitating at least minor kernel changes.  Given Intel's past
> behaviour, I'm pessimistic.