lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: x86: changed output in /proc/cpuinfo for siblings

* Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

> Commit 7ad728f98162cb1af06a85b2a5fc422dddd4fb78
> (cpumask: x86: convert cpu_sibling_map/cpu_core_map to cpumask_var_t)
> changed the output of /proc/cpuinfo for siblings:
>
> Example on an AMD Phenom:
>
> physical id : 0
> siblings : 1
> core id : 3
> cpu cores : 4
>
> Before that commit it was:
>
> physical id : 0
> siblings : 4
> core id : 3
> cpu cores : 4
>
> Instead of cpu_core_mask it now uses cpu_sibling_mask to count siblings.
> This is due to the following hunk of above commit:
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ static void show_cpuinfo_core(struct seq_file *m, struct cpuinf
> if (c->x86_max_cores * smp_num_siblings > 1) {
> seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", c->phys_proc_id);
> seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n",
> - cpus_weight(per_cpu(cpu_core_map, cpu)));
> + cpumask_weight(cpu_sibling_mask(cpu)));
> seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", c->cpu_core_id);
> seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->booted_cores);
> seq_printf(m, "apicid\t\t: %d\n", c->apicid);
>
> Was this the intention or just a mistake?

it was a mistake, because the impact-line does not mention this
side-effect:

Impact: reduce per-cpu size for CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y

> In the latter case attached patch reverts this hunk.

applied, thanks!

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-04 20:35    [W:0.036 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site