Hi folks :-) So I take it I should find that file and simply remove the switch statement? Thanks for the info :) Rudolf. BTW: Cool we have MTRR support! I'll try it asap :) Rudolf. > > On 2005-12-13 at 00:33:10 [+0100], Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx > > wrote: > > On 2005-12-13 at 00:26:58 [+0100], Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxx > > berlin.de> > > wrote: > > > On 2005-12-12 at 23:52:06 [+0100], Stephan Assmus < > > > superstippi@xxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Or, is it already in there and can I somehow enable it? > > > > > > > > > > From src/system/kernel/arch/x86/arch_cpu.c: > > > > > > > > > > void > > > > > arch_cpu_idle(void) > > > > > { > > > > > switch (smp_get_num_cpus()) { > > > > > case 0: > > > > > panic("You need at least 1 CPU to run Haiku\n"); > > > > > case 1: > > > > > asm("hlt"); > > > > > default: > > > > > break; > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > So, if you have more than one CPU, the only thing you can do > > > > > is change > > > > > this > > > > > code. There might be a reason, why it is implemented like it > > > > > is, > > > > > though. > > > > > On > > > > > the other hand there's also no comment that you computer will > > > > > explode > > > > > when > > > > > executing "hlt" on a multi CPU machine either... > > > > > > > > I seem to recall that on my dual CPU machine, there is simply > > > > two idle > > > > threads running. Or is my memory failing me? > > > > > > No. The question was, what the idle threads are executing, > > > though. And > > > that's > > > the above function (in an endless loop). > > > > Yeah, but why would a person with more than one CPU have to change > > that > > code, > > if the real fix is making sure that there is simply as many idle > > threads as > > CPUs? (Somewhere else form this code.) Or am I totally confused? > > Yep, you're totally confused. ;-) > There are as many idle threads as there are CPUs. Each of which > executing the > above function in a endless loop. The real fix is to change the above > code to > also execute "hlt" when there's more than one CPU. The only > suspicious thing > is why this hadn't been done in the first place. > > CU, Ingo > >