linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5 v4] x86: Adapt CPU topology detection for AMD Magny-Cours

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]

Date:	Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:25:19 +0200
From:	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
To:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
CC:	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v4] x86: Adapt CPU topology detection for AMD Magny-Cours

Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> Of course I thought also to implement it this way because it looks
> more consistent, but IMHO the patches are less intrusive if this
> scheme is _not_ used. Instead I kept core_siblings as is ("for
> historic reasons", nobody needs to accustom to new semantics). And use
> cpu_node_siblings where it really matters.
>   

Well, core_siblings and cpu_node_sibling will only be different on
Magny-Cours anyway. So even if core_siblings becomes "all cores in
cpu_node" instead of "all cores in socket", it won't actually break any
existing setup. I personally prefer having the same kind of semantics
for all foo_siblings rather than having something with a different
meaning between core and thread.

Brice

--
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/