lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5 v4] x86: Adapt CPU topology detection for AMD Magny-Cours
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:23:54PM +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > Changes to previous patch set:
> > - fixed allnoconfig compile error and link error if CONFIG_PCI=n
> > - fixed hotplug issue: cpumask of siblings sharing same L3 were not
> > properly updated
> > - properly allocate cpu_node_map
> >
> > Current patch set contains 5 patches:
> > - patch 1 adapts common code to show cpu_node_id,
> > cpu_node_siblings and cpu_node_siblings_list in
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology
> > - patch 2 prepares arch/x86 to provide cpu_node information
> > - patch 3 sets up cpu_node information for AMD Magny-Cours CPU
> > - patch 4 fixes L3 cache information for Magny-Cours
> > - patch 5 fixes mcheck code for Magny-Cours
> >
>
> Hello Andreas,
>
> Reading your first submission I find something disturbing. You say that
> we'll have the following sibling information:
>
> Level | Set of CPUs
> --------------|---------------
> phys_package | core_siblings
> cpu_node | cpu_node_siblings
> core | thread_siblings
> thread | one CPU

> This breaks the existing convention/semantics.

Isn't the existing convention that core_siblings denotes all CPUs on
same socket.

> Currently core/thread_siblings contains the cpumask covering *all*
> siblings of current core/thread object. What you're adding only
> shows the cpumask of current "cpu_node" object in
> cpu_node_siblings. I don't have any preference between both
> semantics, but I think "cpu_node" should use the semantics that
> "core" and "thread" do. So the above should be changed into:

> Level | Set of CPUs
> --------------|---------------
> phys_package | cpu_node_siblings
> cpu_node | core_siblings
> core | thread_siblings
> thread | one CPU

Of course I thought also to implement it this way because it looks
more consistent, but IMHO the patches are less intrusive if this
scheme is _not_ used. Instead I kept core_siblings as is ("for
historic reasons", nobody needs to accustom to new semantics). And use
cpu_node_siblings where it really matters.

But this reminds me that some documentation is required to describe
the new attributes.

What do others think?


Thanks,
Andreas

--
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
System | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
Research | Geschäftsführer: Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
Center | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
(OSRC) | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632

--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-06 12:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans