Re: [PATCH] x86_64: make amd quad core 8 socket system not be clustered_box v2

["Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Ravikiran Thirumalai
<kiran@scalemp.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:42PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>  >On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalemp.com> wrote:
>  >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:25AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>  >>
>  >>  >
>
> >>  >If you can't support that in your hardware you're supposed
>  >>  >to clear it.
>  >>
>  >>  Hmm! How would a hardware vendor do that? That doesn't seem to be clear in
>  >>  the BKDG. (Well, this is the problem with undocumented features :()
>  >>
>  >any good sign for APIC_clustered box? there is apicid between cpus
>  >even all cpu are quadcore and fully populated?
>
>  I would suggest checking the SLIT distances -- On AMD boxes, if you have three
>  different distances between nodes, then that system would be multiboard,
>  and there is no way TSCs can be synced.  On Intel boxes, if there are two
>  different distances between nodes, then this would be a multi board/multi
>  chassi box and TSCs won't be synced.  This is a more generic solution and
>  should work on Summit/Unisys boxes as well.  (I am ignoring Intel CSI for
>  now.  It might need the same treatment as AMD)

1. if acpi=off ?
2. some system will be treated wrong.
my four sockets system
ACPI: SLIT: nodes = 4
 10 13 13 16
 13 10 16 13
 13 16 10 13
 16 13 13 10
my eight sockets system
ACPI: SLIT: nodes = 8
 10 12 12 14 14 14 14 16
 12 10 14 12 14 14 12 14
 12 14 10 14 12 12 14 14
 14 12 14 10 12 12 14 14
 14 14 12 12 10 14 12 14
 14 14 12 12 14 10 14 12
 14 12 14 14 12 14 10 12
 16 14 14 14 14 12 12 10

YH