From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1424224AbcBQV1L (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:27:11 -0500
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:46057 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1423509AbcBQV1I (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:27:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:25:51 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBS-5W7WmF8pgVC-L58uDPTQ8zL1Qn9vvQYj1vkeh4RRPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602172219240.19512@nanos>
References: <20160217132903.767990400@linutronix.de> <20160217133932.279611021@linutronix.de> <CABPqkBS-5W7WmF8pgVC-L58uDPTQ8zL1Qn9vvQYj1vkeh4RRPg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Stephane,

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Stephane Eranian wrote:

Please trim your replies.

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > +       size = topology_max_packages() * sizeof(struct intel_uncore_box *);
> >
> Let's assume  you have a system with 48 cpus with HT on, then
> you have  2 processor sockets, which is correct. But then you further
> assume that  topology_physical_package_id() will return 0 or 1 in this case.
> In other words, that physical id are always assigned from 0 to N in a contiguous
> manner.
> 
> Do we know for sure that this is always the case for all Intel systems
> and that no
> weird BIOS is assigning random numbers for phys_proc_id?

We have quite some stuff which depends on phys_proc_id < max_package_id.

But sure, we should add a sanity check somewhere if we don't have one
already. I'll go digging around in the cpu setup code.

Thanks,

	tglx