lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] report correct CPU/cache topology
Date


> -----Original Mail-----
> Sender: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Time: 2018年4月26日 19:56
> Receiver: David Wang <davidwang@zhaoxin.com>
> CC: mingo@redhat.com; hpa@zytor.com; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org;
> x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; brucechang@via-
> alliance.com; cooperyan@zhaoxin.com; qiyuanwang@zhaoxin.com;
> benjaminpan@viatech.com; lukelin@viacpu.com; timguo@zhaoxin.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] report correct CPU/cache topology
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, David Wang wrote:
>
> > Centaur CPUs enumerate the cache topology in the same way as Intel
> > CPUs, but the function is unused so far.
> > The Centaur init code also misses to initialize x86_info::max_cores,
> > so the CPU topology can't be described correctly.
> >
> > Initialize x86_info::max_cores and invoke init_intel_cachinfo() to
> > make CPU and cache topology information avaliable and correct
>
> Now that looks pretty good.
>
> > Signed-off-by: David Wang <davidwang@zhaoxin.com>
> >
> > Changes from v2 to v3:
> > *1 define new detect_num_cpu_cores() in common.c to replace the
> > original intel_num_cpu_cores;
> > *2 move cpu_detect_cache_sizes inside init_intel_cacheinfo.
>
> But I asked for that being a separate patch with a separate changelog. And
> the intel_cache_info() change wants to be in a separate patch as well.
Then
> the third patch is the one which makes use of these changes for centaur.
>
> Please read review comments carefully and rather ask when you have
> doubts about the meaning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Sorry!
I will split the changes to three separate patches.
Thank you.
---
David




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-02 09:15    [W:0.052 / U:1.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site