linux-kernel - Re: How to detect multi-core and/or HT-enabled CPUs in 2.4.x and 2.6.x kernels

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <E1GzcMG-0001fV-00@calista.eckenfels.net>
Date:	Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:14:28 +0100
From:	Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@...a.inka.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to detect multi-core and/or HT-enabled CPUs in 2.4.x and 2.6.x kernels

In article <1167235772.3281.3977.camel@...topd505.fenrus.org> you wrote:
> once your program (and many others) have such a check, then the next
> step will be pressure on the kernel code to "fake" the old situation
> when there is a processor where <vague criteria of the day> no longer
> holds. It's basically a road to madness :-(

I agree that for HPC sizing a benchmark with various levels of parallelity
are better. The question is, if the code in question only is for inventory
reasons. In that case I would do something like x sockets, y cores and z cm
threads.

Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/