From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262729AbVCPSYY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:24:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262728AbVCPSYX (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:24:23 -0500 Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14]:7887 "EHLO scsfmr002.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262729AbVCPSXW (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:23:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:22:40 -0800 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Andi Kleen Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, rohit.seth@intel.com Subject: Re: [Patch] x86, x86_64: Intel dual-core detection Message-ID: <20050316102239.A10250@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20050315173624.A2100@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20050316170412.GA51070@muc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20050316170412.GA51070@muc.de>; from ak@muc.de on Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:04:12PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:04:12PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:36:25PM -0800, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > > It adds two new fields "core id" and "cpu cores" to x86 /proc/cpuinfo > > and the "core id" field for x86_64("cpu cores" field is already present in > > x86_64). > > Thanks. I have a similar patch for AMD CPUs, unfortuntely it uses > different names ("shared cores" etc.) 2.6.11 already has "cpu cores" for x86_64. I would like to retain that. > > > > This patch also adds cpu_core_map similar to cpu_sibling_map. > Called cpu_sharecore_map in my patch. cpu_sharecore_map sounds like HT logical siblings sharing the core. Initially I was calling it as cpu_coresibling_map but later thought cpu_core_map is a smaller name. > > Hmm, which names should be chosen? For /proc/cpuinfo, I want to stick with "cpu cores" and "core id" But I am open for kernel variable names. Depending on what we decide on kernel variable names, I will see if I have to make any changes to the IPF patch we posted last week. thanks, suresh