From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262200AbVDLTZW (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:25:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262584AbVDLTSI (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:18:08 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:38345 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262112AbVDLKca (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:32:30 -0400 Message-Id: <200504121032.j3CAWHoj005549@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> Subject: [patch 103/198] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix To: torvalds@osdl.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com From: akpm@osdl.org Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:32:11 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Siddha, Suresh B" - broken sibling_map setup in x86_64 - grouping all the core and HT related cpuinfo fields. We are reasonably sure that adding new cpuinfo fields after "siblings" field, will not cause any app failure. Thats because today's /proc/cpuinfo format is completely different on x86, x86_64 and we haven't heard of any x86 app breakage because of this issue. Grouping these fields will result in more or less common format on all architectures (ia64, x86 and x86_64) and will cause less confusion. Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- 25-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c | 9 ++------- 25-akpm/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c | 11 +++-------- 25-akpm/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff -puN arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c~x86-x86_64-dual-core-proc-cpuinfo-and-sibling-map-fix arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c --- 25/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c~x86-x86_64-dual-core-proc-cpuinfo-and-sibling-map-fix 2005-04-12 03:21:27.681928608 -0700 +++ 25-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c 2005-04-12 03:21:27.687927696 -0700 @@ -98,6 +98,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]); seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings); + seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]); + seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores); } #endif @@ -130,13 +132,6 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file c->loops_per_jiffy/(500000/HZ), (c->loops_per_jiffy/(5000/HZ)) % 100); -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP - /* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of - breaking user space parsers. */ - seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]); - seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores); -#endif - return 0; } diff -puN arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c~x86-x86_64-dual-core-proc-cpuinfo-and-sibling-map-fix arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c --- 25/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c~x86-x86_64-dual-core-proc-cpuinfo-and-sibling-map-fix 2005-04-12 03:21:27.683928304 -0700 +++ 25-akpm/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c 2005-04-12 03:21:27.688927544 -0700 @@ -1152,6 +1152,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[cpu]); seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings); + seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[cpu]); + seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores); } #endif @@ -1195,15 +1197,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file } } - seq_printf(m, "\n"); + seq_printf(m, "\n\n"); -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP - /* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of - breaking user space parsers. */ - seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[c - cpu_data]); - seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores); -#endif - seq_printf(m, "\n"); return 0; } diff -puN arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c~x86-x86_64-dual-core-proc-cpuinfo-and-sibling-map-fix arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c --- 25/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c~x86-x86_64-dual-core-proc-cpuinfo-and-sibling-map-fix 2005-04-12 03:21:27.684928152 -0700 +++ 25-akpm/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c 2005-04-12 03:21:27.689927392 -0700 @@ -652,7 +652,7 @@ static __cpuinit void detect_siblings(vo int i; if (smp_num_siblings > 1) { for_each_online_cpu (i) { - if (cpu_core_id[cpu] == phys_proc_id[i]) { + if (cpu_core_id[cpu] == cpu_core_id[i]) { siblings++; cpu_set(i, cpu_sibling_map[cpu]); } _