Messages in this thread | | | From | "Nakajima, Jun" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] hyper-threading information in /proc/cpuinfo | Date | Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:42:53 -0700 |
| |
The notion of "SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threaded)" architecture has been there for a while (at least 8 years, as far as I know). You would get tons of info if you search it in Internet.
Jun
-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:26 PM To: Robert Love Cc: Daniel Phillips; Alan Cox; Nakajima, Jun; 'Dave Jones'; 'akpm@digeo.com'; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; 'chrisl@vmware.com'; 'Martin J. Bligh' Subject: Re: [PATCH] hyper-threading information in /proc/cpuinfo
Robert Love wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:06, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > >>On Saturday 26 October 2002 00:14, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> >> >>>Im just wondering what we would then use to describe a true multiple cpu >>>on a die x86. Im curious what the powerpc people think since they have >>>this kind of stuff - is there a generic terminology they prefer ? >>> >>> >>MIPS also has it, for N=2. >> >> > >Yep, neat chip :) > >POWER4 calls the technology "Chip-Multiprocessing (CMP)" but I have >never seen terminology for referring to the on-core processors >individually. > >They do call the SMT units "threads" obviously, however, so if Alan is >OK with it maybe we should go with Jun's opinion and name the field >"thread" ? > >
"thread" already has another use. Let's not let the idiocy [most likely] perpetrated by marketing folks to filter down to the useful technical level. :)
Sorta like Intel and their re-re-use of "IPF." It's only going to increase confusion.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |