lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 1/25] x86/cpufeatures: Enumerate Intel Hybrid Technology feature bit
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:01:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:46:44AM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > But this series provides the use case, right? Kan's patches handle PMU counters
> > that may differ cross types of CPUs. In patch 2, get_hybrid_params()
> > needs to check first if X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU is enabled before
> > querying the hybrid parameters. Otherwise, we would need to rely on the
> > maximum level of CPUID, which may not be reliable.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:33:54AM -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > We are working on changes to P-State driver for hybrid CPUs using this
> > define. They are still work in progress.
> > But this patch can be submitted later with our set of changes.
>
> Answering to both with a single mail:
>
> I don't have a problem with X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU - I simply don't want
> to show "hybrid_cpu" in /proc/cpuinfo unless there's a valid use case
> for userspace to know that it is running on a hybrid CPU.

Ah, I get your point now. You would like to see

#define X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU (18*32+15) /* "" This part has CPUs of more than one type */

Right? Now your first comment makes sense.

Srinivas, Kan, I don't think we need to expose "hybrid_cpu" in
/proc/cpuinfo, do we?

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-10 23:27    [W:0.258 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site