[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080716213717.GB9594@localdomain>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:37:17 -0500
From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cputopology: Always define CPU topology information [4th
try]
Hi Ben-
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Not all architectures and configurations define CPU topology information.
> This can result in an empty topology directory in sysfs, and requires
> in-kernel users to protect all uses with #ifdef - see
> <http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=120639033904472&w=2>.
>
> The documentation of CPU topology specifies what the defaults should be
> if only partial information is available from the hardware. So we can
> provide these defaults as a fallback.
I've been looking at adding topology information to powerpc and I came
across this.
I understand the need for fallback definitions of the topology APIs
within the kernel, but I'm not sure I agree with exposing these things
in sysfs unconditionally -- the default values for physical_package_id
and core_id don't really make sense on powerpc (and other non-x86
architectures, I suspect).
Would you object to a patch which exposes in sysfs only the topology
information which the architecture provides?
--
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