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 S1424066AbcBQWdC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:33:02 -0500
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:46231 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1030409AbcBQWdB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:33:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:31:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, 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: <20160217221640.GD5083@two.firstfloor.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602172327520.19512@nanos>
References: <20160217132903.767990400@linutronix.de> <20160217133932.279611021@linutronix.de> <CABPqkBS-5W7WmF8pgVC-L58uDPTQ8zL1Qn9vvQYj1vkeh4RRPg@mail.gmail.com> <878u2j9gjr.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602172255510.19512@nanos>
 <20160217221640.GD5083@two.firstfloor.org>
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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > Do you have any data to back that up or is that just "believe" ?
> 
> I've seen systems with discontiguous apic ids before.
> 
> It is obvious if you consider setups with node hotplug.

Right, but if you have 1024 maximal cores and 
 
> BTW reading this thread you don't seem interested in any code review
> feedback, attacking everyone, not bothering to look up data sheets,

I did look up data sheets, but I assumed that IVB is the same. But that's what
reviews are for.

> not understanding the hardware you're changing the driver for, etc.

Oh well.

> Why do you even bother to post the patches?

Just to annoy you.

Thanks,

	tglx