[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090602155833.GA23657@alberich.amd.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:58:33 +0200
From: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
To: Bert Wesarg <bert.wesarg@...glemail.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: provide CPU topology information for
multi-node processors
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:05:07PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 20:42, Andreas Herrmann
> <andreas.herrmann3@....com> wrote:
> > This support can be switched off/on using a new config option
> > MULTI_NODE_CPU. If the option is set the CPU topology information is
> > extended with cpu_node information. This includes a cpu_node_id,
> > cpu_node_siblings and cpu_node_siblings_list.
> I think this would be a step back after commit
> c50cbb05a05cf1f9ca3592272eff053c847727d8. Which exported default
> topology information, in case the architecture does not provide these
> information.
I am fine with exporting default topology information for all
architectures.
I just wanted to avoid pollution of sysfs with useless information
when this information is not provided on an architecture.
Further thoughts -- e.g. concerning the MULTI_NODE_CPU config option?
If I provide defaults for cpu_node_id, cpu_node_siblings etc. the
config option becomes rather useless and I'll remove it.
Regards,
Andreas
--
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