Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, FreeBSD by default disables hyper-threading "cores", by not > scheduling any threads to it. However, it still counts those cores as > "active but permanently idle" when calculating system-wide CPUs > statistics. It is incorrect, since it skews statistics quite a bit and > creates real problems for certain types of applications (monitoring > applications for example), by making them believe that the system does > have enough idle resources, while in fact it does not. > > I think the proper way to handle disabled cores is to not account for > them in any way. Please find the patch attached, which fixes the > problem. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. > > -Maxim > > Index: local_apic.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/i386/local_apic.c,v > retrieving revision 1.28 > diff -d -u -r1.28 local_apic.c > --- local_apic.c 12 Jul 2006 21:22:43 -0000 1.28 > +++ local_apic.c 2 Sep 2006 00:42:32 -0000 > _at__at_ -615,6 +615,16 _at__at_ > /* Send EOI first thing. */ > lapic_eoi(); > > + /* > + * Don't do any accounting for the disabled HTT cores, since it > + * will provide misleading numbers for the userland. > + * > + * No locking is necessary here, since even if we loose the race > + * when hlt_cpus_mask changes it is not a big deal, really. > + */ > + if ((hlt_cpus_mask & (1 << PCPU_GET(cpuid))) != 0) > + return; > + > /* Look up our local APIC structure for the tick counters. */ > la = &lapics[PCPU_GET(apic_id)]; > (*la->la_timer_count)++; You probably also want this for amd64. Also, wouldn't it be better to completely disable the LAPIC timer on the hyperthreaded cpus? -- SuleimanReceived on Sat Sep 02 2006 - 04:21:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:59 UTC