Intel Hyper Threading

I have an issue with a board where the CPU indicates it has Y number of
logical processors, and X number of cores.  However, enabling and disabling
Hyper Threading in the BIOS will not make a difference to the number of
actual processors that are visibile -- X, not Y.  It seems to me there ought
to be a machine specific register (MSR) feature bit that controls Hyper
Threading, a bit that is not being toggled to enable HT.  Does anyone know
where to find the necessary information about enabling HT via an MSR, and
which register and bit(s) this would be?

I already know about APIC, the CPUID feature bits in EDX, and the logical
versus physical core counts in CPUID values.  What I am looking for is
another bit, or bits, elsewhere that truly enables HT.

Thanks,

"whodunit" <nul@localhost.org> wrote in message
news:7W0Fj.59884$cQ1.37949@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I have an issue with a board where the CPU indicates it has Y number of
>logical processors, and X number of cores.  However, enabling and disabling
>Hyper Threading in the BIOS will not make a difference to the number of
>actual processors that are visibile -- X, not Y.  It seems to me there
>ought to be a machine specific register (MSR) feature bit that controls
>Hyper Threading, a bit that is not being toggled to enable HT.  Does anyone
>know where to find the necessary information about enabling HT via an MSR,
>and which register and bit(s) this would be?
>
> I already know about APIC, the CPUID feature bits in EDX, and the logical
> versus physical core counts in CPUID values.  What I am looking for is
> another bit, or bits, elsewhere that truly enables HT.
>
> Thanks,
>

yaaawwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:37:08 GMT, "whodunit"
<nul@localhost.org> wrote:

>I have an issue with a board where the CPU indicates it has Y number of
>logical processors, and X number of cores.  However, enabling and disabling
>Hyper Threading in the BIOS will not make a difference to the number of
>actual processors that are visibile -- X, not Y.  It seems to me there ough
t
>to be a machine specific register (MSR) feature bit that controls Hyper
>Threading, a bit that is not being toggled to enable HT.  Does anyone know
>where to find the necessary information about enabling HT via an MSR, and
>which register and bit(s) this would be?
>
>I already know about APIC, the CPUID feature bits in EDX, and the logical
>versus physical core counts in CPUID values.  What I am looking for is
>another bit, or bits, elsewhere that truly enables HT.
>
>Thanks,
>

Is it safe to assume you have ruled out other factors like
whether HT was enabled when the OS was installed?

It might not hurt to list the hardware and OS.

>>I have an issue with a board where the CPU indicates it has Y number of 


> Is it safe to assume you have ruled out other factors like whether HT was
> enabled when the OS was installed?
>
> It might not hurt to list the hardware and OS.


For the sake of argument, let us say the OS is the venerable MS DOS, and
that my program is able to identify and run threads on all active
processors.  From the above statement, it is known that Y logical processors
is exactly twice the number of X physical cores.  Both values are available
from the CPUID instruction.

The initial boot attempt with Linux (kernel 2.6.22) was not successful with
the CPU is its current socket, so I will attempt to move it to another
socket this afternoon and check if Linux is able to boot.  The problem
yesterday afternoon was that Linux could not start CPU 0, according to the
screen.

I cannot divulge the processor, except to say it is from Intel.  I merely
s knowledge about any MSRs that control Hyper Threading, if they exist,
so I can make full use of the processor as it advertises its capable of.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:38:02 +0000, whodunit wrote:

> I cannot divulge the processor, except to say it is from Intel.  I merely
> s knowledge about any MSRs that control Hyper Threading, if they exist,
> so I can make full use of the processor as it advertises its capable of.

Great!  I need your help but cannot tell you what I'm working with.
What, is your company working on upgrading Intel chips without Intel
knowing?  It's not like you are giving up some trade secrets here.

Stop the BS, if you want an answer then let the people know what
hardware and software you are using.  Only then can someone give you an
answer without guessing if it is right or not.


--

Regards
Robert

Smile... it increases your face value!
Linux User #296285
http://counter.li.org



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==-
---
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsg
roups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

whodunit wrote:

> I have an issue with a board where the CPU indicates it has Y number of
> logical processors, and X number of cores.  However, enabling and
> disabling Hyper Threading in the BIOS will not make a difference to the
> number of
> actual processors that are visibile -- X, not Y.  It seems to me there
> ought to be a machine specific register (MSR) feature bit that controls
> Hyper
> Threading, a bit that is not being toggled to enable HT.  Does anyone know
> where to find the necessary information about enabling HT via an MSR, and
> which register and bit(s) this would be?
>
> I already know about APIC, the CPUID feature bits in EDX, and the logical
> versus physical core counts in CPUID values.  What I am looking for is
> another bit, or bits, elsewhere that truly enables HT.
>
> Thanks,

If the kernel isn't smp aware, it'll never make use of the feature. I
suggest you use a recent kernel, 2.6.23.3 and enable the needed features.





--

Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

>> I cannot divulge the processor, except to say it is from Intel.  I merely
 
>
> Great!  I need your help but cannot tell you what I'm working with.
> What, is your company working on upgrading Intel chips without Intel
> knowing?  It's not like you are giving up some trade secrets here.
>
> Stop the BS, if you want an answer then let the people know what
> hardware and software you are using.  Only then can someone give you an
> answer without guessing if it is right or not.


The "BS" is this, I have engineering samples of Intel processors that have
not hit the market, and Intel has not responded to any of our queries
regarding bugs with their BIOS / processor.  Therefore, I s information
from the community at large regarding ealier processors that I might be able
to check / use with these new ones.  I am not asking for an accurate answer
to these unannounced processors, only possible avenues to check based on
already shipping processors from the Pentium IV and newer.

You don't like what I posted, too bad, I cannot name the processors due to
NDA agreements.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:30:18 GMT, "whodunit"
<nul@localhost.org> wrote:
 
>
>
>The "BS" is this, I have engineering samples of Intel processors that have
>not hit the market, and Intel has not responded to any of our queries
>regarding bugs with their BIOS / processor.  Therefore, I s information
>from the community at large regarding ealier processors that I might be abl
e
>to check / use with these new ones.  I am not asking for an accurate answer
>to these unannounced processors, only possible avenues to check based on
>already shipping processors from the Pentium IV and newer.
>
>You don't like what I posted, too bad, I cannot name the processors due to
>NDA agreements.
>

Then we can't say whether these new processors follow any
conventions - If Intel is interested in supporting this they
will get back to you - try emailing them again, and again.