mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: discuss@x86-64.org
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [Patch 1/2] x86, x86_64: Intel HT, Multi core detection fixes
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:49:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200510122349.05312.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051012143641.B29292@unix-os.sc.intel.com>

On Wednesday 12 October 2005 23:36, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> Fields obtained through cpuid vector 0x1(ebx[16:23]) and
> vector 0x4(eax[14:25], eax[26:31]) indicate the maximum values and might not
> always be the same as what is available and what OS sees.  So make sure
> "siblings" and "cpu cores" values in /proc/cpuinfo reflect the values as seen
> by OS instead of what cpuid instruction says. This will also fix the buggy BIOS
> cases (for example where cpuid on a single core cpu says there are "2" siblings,
> even when HT is disabled in the BIOS. 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4359)

I'm not too fond of this new booted_core variable. How about
you just put the true number of cores into x86_num_cores? 
What should x86_num_cores be in your setup anyways if not
"booted cores"? 

Also I must admit the number of different variables to keep
track of multicore and siblingness starts to become mindboggling,
so I would recommend you add a fat overview comment somewhere
that describes their definition and relationship. Or better put
something into Documentation, it is probably as confusing for 
user space /proc/cpuinfo consumer too.

-Andi

  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-12 21:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-05 23:17 [Patch] x86, x86_64: Intel HT, Multi core detection code cleanup Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-06 10:42 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-07  2:20   ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-07  9:52     ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2005-10-08  0:52       ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-08 10:28         ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-12 21:30           ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-12 21:36           ` [Patch 1/2] x86, x86_64: Intel HT, Multi core detection fixes Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-12 21:49             ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2005-10-12 22:19               ` [discuss] " Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-13  0:10                 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-13 21:55                   ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-13 21:59                   ` [Patch 2/2] x86, x86_64: fix Intel cache detection code assumption about threads sharing Siddha, Suresh B
2005-10-12 21:41           ` Siddha, Suresh B

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200510122349.05312.ak@suse.de \
    --to=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome