| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:52:02 -0800 (PST) From: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.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@...xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 For sizing purposes, doing benchmarks is the only way. For the purpose of Ganglia the sockets/cores/threads info is purely for inventory. And we are likely going to add the new information to our metrics. But - we still need to find a way to extract the infor :-) Cheers Martin PS: I have likely killed the CC this time. Sorry. ------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists