[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hyper Threading



On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:12:50AM +0100, Marco Cecconi said
> Rob Weir wrote:
> 
> >>Hello, which woody kernel supports Hyper Threading? I've read somewhere
> >>that 2.4+ kernels support this feature but how? Is a SMP build
> >>sufficient? 
> >Yes, thought 2.6 will do smarter things with it.  You also require APIC
> >and/or ACPI support, no doubt google has the details.
> 
> What is it for?

APIC is some interupt controller thingy that I don't know anything
about, and ACPI is a power control thing, which also lets the kernel
find out about installed CPUs.  Or so I hear, I don't know much about it
either.

> >>How does linux support HT, dual processor style (like e.g.
> >>Win2000) or natively (like e.g. WinXP)?
> >What does "natively" mean in this context?
> 
> Well, I'm not /that/ versed in hardware issues, but both Win2000 and 
> WinXP see the CPU as being 2 CPUs - but the system under WinXP is 
> actually much faster. In M$.Win2000.Hardware I was told that it's 
> because Win2000 does not support HT "natively" - it just sees it as 2 
> processors, whereas XP knows the difference. I dunno whether it's just a 
> compile optimization or you actually need code to take full advantage of 
> the feature. It would make sense, though, given the difference in speed.

Ah.  2.4 treats the HT CPUs as dual SMP ones, but 2.6 knows more and
realises it's not quite two CPUs.

> It's hard to compare with Debian, since it doesn't support half of my 
> hardware (including MB chipset, SATA and Radeon videocard... :-()

Debian doesn't support hardware, the Linux kernel does.  Install a newer
one that supports your hardware better.  If stuff is not supported at
all, don't forget to email the vendor and complain.

-- 
Rob Weir <rweir@ertius.org> | mlspam@ertius.org  |  Do I look like I want a CC?
Words of the day:    Indigo Reno bomb diwn Cocaine enigma Aldergrove government

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: