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

Re: Problems with PAE kernel sort of solved.



Frank McCormick wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >You early adopter you.  I haven't rebooted my machine to the new
> >kernel today yet.  :-)

And since then I have rebooted.  All good here.  :-)  But not a PAE
kernel here since I am using 64-bits.

> >I assume that you could select the previous kernel and boot okay?  It
> >would be a good thing to double blind test.  That would be a good A-B
> >comparison test.  Because it is possible that the old kernel fails to
> >boot now.
> 
>    Yes, 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 have been booting for months now (and
> still boots) without a problem. It was only when PAE was introduced
> I started having the no-boot problem

Sounds like a kernel bug.  I think it justifies a bug report against
the kernel.  But loss of HT would not be of extreme consequence in my
mind.  Just a normal bug and not anything more severe.

>      I have since benchmarked the system informally..and it is VERY
> slightly faster with hyper-threading on.

I am just curious but how much difference are you seeing?  I expect it
to be small and application dependent.  Nothing on single threaded
applications and only 2%-3% on multi-threaded applications?

> >That is odd since hyperthreading really has little to do with
> >multi-core cpus.  It is orthogonal to it.  In many ways HT is an Intel
> 
>   That's what I thought but the more mysterious thing is why the PAE
> kernel boots fine with hyper-threading turned off.

It is an important clue.  But I don't know the answer.

> > Did you *really* have a dual-core?  Or did you have a single-core
> > with HT enabled?  I think probably the latter based upon your
> > description so far.
>
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca
> cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe pebs
> bts cid xtpr
> ...
> What do you make of that ?? Looks like a single-core to me ?

The process definitely displays the "ht" flag and should therefore
support hyperthreading.  Unless you see two sockets and two cpus then
I think you actually have a single core cpu with hyperthreading
enabled producing the second fake cpu.  In which case losing
hyperthreading, while still not good, isn't a huge big deal.

> I think now I know more about CPU's than I ever wanted to know:)

:-)

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: