On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, John David Anglin wrote: > > It may be that the lack of L2 cache is the reason why the CPUs don't > > support multiprocessing ... I may buy two better CPUs, if I had actually > > guarantee that the machine isn't locked (I don't want to waste more money > > just to find out that the firmware lock doesn't go away). > > Are you sure the part numbers for the two processor modules that you > have are the same? Parts with cache seem much more common. There > also seem to be quite a few obsolete parts. They are the same (I posted the version numbers written by PDC). But as you noted, the versions without L2 cache may not be smp aware. > It might be Linux would work better without the L2 cache. What is the exact problem with L2 cache? Is it virtually indexed too? > There are are some cache coherency issues that haven't been resolved in > SMP. What exactly do you mean? > These problems are aggrevated by the L2 cache which takes a long > time to flush. > > It's just not clear that your machine is locked. The c8000 model > name doesn't change depending on number of processors. If you search > on rp3410 processor upgrade, you will find that a processor update > license is needed to go from one to two processor. This is clear > in the documentation. I couldn't find anything similar for c8000. > Indeed, there are many indications that an after-market processor > update is possible for it. I don't know. Before I buy two CPUs to get a quad-core system, I'd like to make sure it isn't locked. Can the lock be detected somehow? Mikulas > Good luck, > Dave > -- > J. David Anglin dave.anglin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
