site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com On May 9, 2005, at 10:32 PM, William Kucharski wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Shaun Wexler wrote: development:~ shaun$ sysctl -a | grep cpu hw.ncpu = 2 hw.cpufrequency = 1416666661 hw.availcpu = 1 hw.ncpu: 2 hw.activecpu: 1 hw.physicalcpu: 1 hw.physicalcpu_max: 2 hw.logicalcpu: 1 hw.logicalcpu_max: 2 hw.cputype: 18 hw.cpusubtype: 11 hw.cpufrequency: 1416666661 hw.cpufrequency_min: 1416666661 hw.cpufrequency_max: 1416666661 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... In Panther I used max_cpus to determine the max number of worker threads that should be spawned for a particular purpose. Does this equate to physical_cpu_max or logical_cpu_max in Darwin 8.0.0? I need to use the largest of these values. I suppose that any *new* hardware will not run Panther anyway, but the question remains the same: which is largest, and which value will be used for max_cpus? I can't speak for Tiger, but based on experiences with other operating systems, logical_cpu_max will always be equal to or greater than physical_cpu_max. For example, given dual cores, given two physical CPUs you'd have four logical CPUs. Yes, that is also my assumption. Currently if I disable one CPU, it results in: What I want to know is if I should conditionalize on OS version, and read logical_cpu_max instead of max_cpus? Again, this is moot if dual-core machines will not support Panther, but we won't know that for a while... -- Shaun Wexler MacFOH http://www.macfoh.com This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com