Author Topic: OS/4 (technical details only)  (Read 16607 times)

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 28
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #165 on: March 23, 2019, 09:41:13 pm »
Of interest, a patch was posted for pixman by Intel to use AVX2

OS/4 does not support AVX2

David Graser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 59
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #166 on: March 31, 2019, 12:25:45 am »
Pulled out an older laptop that has AVX to check the OS/4 kernel, the FFSandyBridge, and the AVX libs on it and no FF traps.  The AVX libs are working great.

Moritz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #167 on: April 01, 2019, 04:06:49 pm »
Pulled out an older laptop that has AVX to check the OS/4 kernel, the FFSandyBridge, and the AVX libs on it and no FF traps.  The AVX libs are working great.

Hello David,

Are you using the AN Acpi or the OS2Apic shipped with the OS4 Kernel?

Thanks

M


David Graser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 59
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #168 on: April 04, 2019, 01:24:57 am »
Pulled out an older laptop that has AVX to check the OS/4 kernel, the FFSandyBridge, and the AVX libs on it and no FF traps.  The AVX libs are working great.

Hello David,

Are you using the AN Acpi or the OS2Apic shipped with the OS4 Kernel?

Thanks

M

There is no patch presently for the ACPI included in ArcaOS 5.02 to use with the OS/4 kernel.  As a result, I have the statement remmed out in the conf.OS4.  The OS4 kernel supports AVX while the OS/2 kernel does not.

Lars

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 43
  • Posts: 421
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #169 on: April 04, 2019, 11:58:17 am »
For what it is worth:
if you ask the OS/4 guys, they are going to provide you with an ACPI4.BPD driver plus the OS4APIC.PSD driver that goes along with it. This combination is a full replacement for ACPI.PSD as provided by AN.
The "BPD" driver variant is an OS4 extension to the driver model (they are special, will load without being listed in CONFIG.SYS and load early in the boot process).

However, the ACPI4.BPD driver is beta.

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 149
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #170 on: April 04, 2019, 05:04:37 pm »
BTW,  I'm moving the Firefox builds, including the AVX one, to https://bitbucket.org/dryeo/mozilla-os2/downloads/

Andi B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 21
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #171 on: April 05, 2019, 09:50:37 am »
Dave do you have the matching SM builds too? Are the improvements you've made the last months relevant for SM too? I think I'm using your latest SM but it's some time ago since I updated. Maybe you'll provide a link to the best one here again to assure we SM users are using the latest greatest. Thanks..

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 10
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #172 on: April 05, 2019, 03:54:03 pm »
Lars, everyone...

For what it is worth:
if you ask the OS/4 guys, they are going to provide you with an ACPI4.BPD driver plus the OS4APIC.PSD driver that goes along with it. This combination is a full replacement for ACPI.PSD as provided by AN...

...like you said, "for what its worth", it would make the most sense that by default the ACPI4.BPD driver is bundled with the regular OS4 package drops, does it not? I think most of us are probably looking to try out the equivalent level of functionality (and more) to what's currently officially available and supported.

Does anyone know what specifically is (and why) in the ACPI4.BPD as opposed to OS4APIC?

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 149
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #173 on: April 05, 2019, 04:41:04 pm »
Dave do you have the matching SM builds too? Are the improvements you've made the last months relevant for SM too? I think I'm using your latest SM but it's some time ago since I updated. Maybe you'll provide a link to the best one here again to assure we SM users are using the latest greatest. Thanks..

Haven't had anyone ask for matching SM builds. I don't really know how much the extra SIMD instructions make, was hoping someone would benchmark. I did build an i686 version of FF for someone and in testing, I didn't notice much difference from the Pentium M build. (Newer ones don't work on this CPU)
The latest SM is https://bitbucket.org/dryeo/dry-comm-esr31/downloads/seamonkey-2.42.9esr_r3.en-US.os2-Pentium-M.zip which is basically what I'm using.

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 28
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #174 on: April 06, 2019, 09:52:51 am »
Does anyone know what specifically is (and why) in the ACPI4.BPD as opposed to OS4APIC?

ACPI4.BPD is a kind of BASEDEV  which is loading before any PSD. It contains Intel ACPICA lib and interface part  to be recognized as PDD by any other system components which need ACPI service.

OS4APIC.PSD  needs info about HW configuration. There are two sources for this info: MPtable and ACPI system.  OS4APIC.PSD is able to get info from MPtable itself, and on the contrary, to get info from ACPI it engages ACPI4.BPD.

It happens so that some mobos and notebooks  do not have valid MPtable and ACPI is the only way for OS4APIC.PSD to get the required info.

One more consumer for ACPI4.BPD service is CLOCK03c.SYS.  CLOCK03c uses ACPI  to get config info about HPET.



Lars

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 43
  • Posts: 421
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #175 on: April 06, 2019, 02:06:09 pm »
That still does not answer the question why ACPI4.BPD is not bundled with the OS4 kernel package. The kernel package only contains OS4APIC.PSD but not the BPD.
And by now, ACPI4.BPD cannot be found on the OS4 web page any more.
I do have ACPI4.BPD but I don't even remember where I got it from ...

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 10
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #176 on: April 08, 2019, 12:19:12 am »
Hey OS4User,

ACPI4.BPD is a kind of BASEDEV  which is loading before any PSD. It contains Intel ACPICA lib and interface part to be recognized as PDD by any other system components which need ACPI service.

So is it a required part, or an extended functionality type of a thing?

...OS4APIC.PSD  needs info about HW configuration. There are two sources for this info: MPtable and ACPI system.  OS4APIC.PSD is able to get info from MPtable itself, and on the contrary, to get info from ACPI it engages ACPI4.BPD.

It happens so that some mobos and notebooks  do not have valid MPtable and ACPI is the only way for OS4APIC.PSD to get the required info.

Alright, so from that perspective it might explain why on my machine running OS4APIC with /APIC switch causes a HARD-HANG...as in: power off/on is the only way out. I tried this with mulitple combinations and nothing got me past this brick-wall. However, removing /APIC does allow the machine to boot up successfully. Yet the output of MPTable clearly shows an active MPS 1.4 setup.

...One more consumer for ACPI4.BPD service is CLOCK03c.SYS.  CLOCK03c uses ACPI  to get config info about HPET.

I've attached outputs of the MPTable as well as KERNLOG$ from a successfull boot, is this enough to troubleshoot the /APIC hang? Is there a better (more appropriate) place to submit such results?

In particular, going back to the original question re: ACPI4.BPD, it would seem that in my case in particular running this driver might help??? So where can I actually obtain the ACPI4.BPD driver to debug further?

Thanks!
-Dariusz

Lars

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 43
  • Posts: 421
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #177 on: April 08, 2019, 09:40:14 am »
You should have read the OS/4 kernel readme. It clearly states that in order to use OS4APIC.PSD with the /APIC switch you have to also use ACPI4.BPD. The only alternative to this set up is a patched ACPI.PSD as a replacement for OS4APIC.PSD+ACPI4.BPD (which will never happen as the OS/4 guys need to patch each and every new version of ACPI.PSD in order to make it work with the OS/4 kernel).

In short: if you don't have ACPI4.BPD then you cannot specify the /APIC switch. But if you have working MPS 1.4 tables then you also do not necessarily need ACPI support. One drawback will be that you cannot power off via ACPI (obviously) if you don't have ACPI support.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 09:41:58 am by Lars »

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 28
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #178 on: April 08, 2019, 02:37:37 pm »
It clearly states that in order to use OS4APIC.PSD with the /APIC switch you have to also use ACPI4.BPD.

Lars,

OS4APIC.PSD works ok with /APIC switch  if MPtable is correct. One needs acpi4.bpd  only if MPtable is incorrect or missing. 

I admit that os4apic.txt was not clear enough - it is already altered.


Dariusz,

How is your testing of acpi4.bpd doing  (hope you've managed to get it) ?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 11:11:15 pm by OS4User »

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 10
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: OS/4 (technical details only)
« Reply #179 on: April 09, 2019, 12:08:30 am »
Lars,

You should have read the OS/4 kernel readme. It clearly states that in order to use OS4APIC.PSD with the /APIC switch you have to also use ACPI4.BPD...

Ohhh??? Well, having read all these docs multiple times I have to say I completely missed it...so yeah, I'd love to see you quote the specific section, b/c as best as I can tell this is not spelled out.