| 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: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:48:23 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> To: Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Burke <jburke@...hat.com> Subject: Re: CPU siblings Jon Masters wrote: > Yo, > > Myself and a colleague were just discussing the output of /proc/cpuinfo, > specifically the CPU siblings field. He pointed out/we think that this > historically was supposed to be number of HT siblings for a given CPU. > > The actual value of that field comes from the Hamming Weight (number of > set bits) of the per_cpu cpu_core_map variable, which supposedly is > "representing HT and core siblings of each logical CPU", i.e. both HT > siblings and additional cores within the same CPU package. > > Does this mean that "siblings" needs renaming? (doesn't it come > originally from "HT siblings"? or is it supposed to be both?). More > importantly, what's the correct way to determine number of HTs? > Related topic: Intel has announced that some of their new CPU lines will once again have SMT in each core. Just the thought of multiple sockets with multiple core, with multiple threads and shared L3 cache sounds like a scheduling nightmare. -- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- 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