Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] Transition /proc/cpuinfo -> sysfs | From | "Lamont R. Peterson" <> | Date | Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:03:29 -0600 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 16:41, Deepak Saxena wrote: > Following this email will be a set of patches that provide a first pass > at exporting information currently in /proc/cpuinfo to sysfs for i386 and > ARM. There are applications that are dependent on /proc/cpuinfo atm, so we > can't just kill it, but we should agree on a kill date and require all > arches & apps to transition by that point. I've added code to > proc_misc.c to remind the user that the cpuinfo interface is going > away (currently using arbitrary date ~1 year from now). I've also > added a pointer to struct cpu that can be used by arch code to > store any information that might be needed during attribute printing. > > Couple of questions: > > - Do we want to standardize on a set of attributes that all CPUs > must provide to sysfs? bogomips, L1 cache size/type/sets/assoc (when > available), L2 cache (L3..L4), etc? This would make the output be the > same across architectures for those features and would simply require > adding some fields to struct cpu to carry this data and some generic > ATTR entries to drivers/base/cpu.c. I am all for standardized > interfaces so I'll do a first pass at this if desired.
I vote yes, but only to a point. You are right; standardized interfaces are a good thing. For any architecture specific information, additional fields should be available. Perhaps either always following the standardized sysfs entries or as an "extra-cpuinfo" (or "[arch]-cpuinfo"?) sysfs node.
> - On an HT setup, do we want link(s) pointing to sibling(s)?
I like this idea, even if it is not necessary because siblings should be listed sequentially together. i.e. two physical CPUs with HT would be cpu0, cpu1, cpu2 & cpu3. Obviously, cpu0 & cpu1 go together and cpu2 & cpu3 also go together.
> - Currently the bug and feature fields on x86 have "yes" and "no". > Do we want the same in sysfs or 1|0?
If the flags are not going to be decoded, then I say definitely 1|0.
> - Instead of dumping the "flags" field, should we just dump cpu > registers as hex strings and let the user decode (as the comment > for the x86_cap_flags implies.
I like this. In fact, if it goes this way, then I will write a "cpuinfo" program that will do all the decoding as a generic tool.
> I'll try to do MIPS, SH, and PPC when I get a chance (all I have access > to), but have other things to do for a while, so want comments on above > questions first.
When you are ready, I can also get SPARC64 & AMD64 (Opteron 242). -- Lamont R. Peterson <lamont@gurulabs.com> Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. http://www.GuruLabs.com/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |