freebsd stable - Sep 2016 - X2APIC support

On 04/09/2016 19:29, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> This is possible, of course.  But it would not affect "SMP: Added CPU
..."
> lines.
Well, looking at the code it seems that only if mptable is used, then those
lines are expected to correctly identify a BSP.  With MADT there is no
information to identify the BSP and that is supposed to happen in
cpu_mp_start().


static void
madt_add_cpu(u_int acpi_id, u_int apic_id, u_int flags)
{
        struct lapic_info *la;

        /*
         * The MADT does not include a BSP flag, so we have to let the
         * MP code figure out which CPU is the BSP on its own.
         */
...

In other words, those "SMP: Added CPU ..." are truly a cosmetic issue.
And it's my guess (just a guess) that BSP LAPIC ID is incorrect in the
problematic configuration.

-- 
Andriy Gapon

On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 08:14:07PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 04/09/2016 19:29, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > This is possible, of course.  But it would not affect "SMP: Added
CPU ..."
> > lines.
> 
> Well, looking at the code it seems that only if mptable is used, then those
> lines are expected to correctly identify a BSP.  With MADT there is no
> information to identify the BSP and that is supposed to happen in
cpu_mp_start().
> 
> 
> static void
> madt_add_cpu(u_int acpi_id, u_int apic_id, u_int flags)
> {
>         struct lapic_info *la;
> 
>         /*
>          * The MADT does not include a BSP flag, so we have to let the
>          * MP code figure out which CPU is the BSP on its own.
>          */
> ...
> 
> In other words, those "SMP: Added CPU ..." are truly a cosmetic
issue.
> And it's my guess (just a guess) that BSP LAPIC ID is incorrect in the
> problematic configuration.
For next day or two I am have new server with same hardware before put
in prodution.
Can I do some test for you?