Sometimes, the problem is in a system's BIOS
We have quite a number of donated Dell C6220 blade servers, each of which is a dual socket machine with Xeon E5-2680s. Each E5-2680 is an 8-core CPU with HyperThreads, so before we turned SMT off the machines reported as having 32 CPUs, or 16 if you either turned SMT off or had to disable one socket (and once you have to do both, you're down to 8 CPUs). These days, most of these machines have been put in a SLURM-based scheduling system that provides people with exclusive access to compute servers.
Once upon a time recently, we noticed that the central SLURM scheduler was reporting that one of these machines had two CPUs, not (then) 32. When we investigated, this turned out not to be some glitch in the SLURM daemons or a configuration mistake, but actually what the Linux kernel was seeing. Specifically, as far as the kernel could see, the system was a dual socket system with each socket having exactly one CPU (still Xeon E5-2680s, though). Although we don't know exactly how it happened, this was ultimately due to BIOS settings; when my co-worker went into the BIOS to check things, he found that the BIOS was set to turn off both SMT and all extra cores on each socket. Turning on the relevant BIOS options restored the system to its full expected 32-CPU count.
(We don't know how this happened, but based on information from our Prometheus metrics system it started immediately after our power failure; we just didn't notice for about a month and a half. Apparently the BIOS default is to enable everything, so this is not as simple as a reversion to defaults.)
If nothing else, this is a useful reminder to me that BIOSes can do weird things and can be set in weird ways. If nothing else makes sense, well, it might be in the BIOS. It's worth checking, at least.
(We already knew this about Dell BIOSes, of course, because our Dell R210s and R310s came set with the BIOS disabling all but the first drive. When you normally use mirrored system disks, this is first mysterious and then rather irritating.)
My Mastodon remark about tiling window managers
Over on Mastodon, I said:
Two reasons that I'm unlikely to like tiling window managers are that I like empty space (and lack of clutter) on my desktop and I don't like too-large windows. Filling all the space with windows of some size is thus very much not what I want, and I definitely have preferred sizes and shapes for my common windows.
On the one hand, I've already written an entry on my views on tiling window managers. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever managed to state them so succinctly, and I find myself not wanting to just leave that lost in the depths of Mastodon.
(Looking back at that entry caused me to re-read its comments and realize that they may be where I found out about Cinnamon's keybindings for tiling windows, which would answer a parenthetical mystery.)