| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <kvrts6-7b4.ln1@chipmunk.wormnet.eu> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:07:32 +0000 From: Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: fix confusing name of /proc/cpuinfo "ht" flag Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote: >> >> "ht" flag indicates only ability to detect siblings not HT presence itself. >> >> Inspired by: >> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/2009/11/10/common-hyperthreading-misconception/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> >> --- >> It could be that there are some user-space programs depending on "ht" >> flag so the patch is marked as RFC.. > > If a cpu is capable of ht but doesn't have any siblings, do we actually > care? > I have a Core2 Duo U7600 with siblings set to 2 and the 'ht' flag and I know the CPU in my lapdog does not actually support hyperthreading. > If many people consider the "ht" flag to indicate that hyperthreading is > actually available, what about instead changing the meaning of the "ht" > flag to indicate that there actually are siblings? > Could be determined surely by "grep siblings /proc/cpuinfo"? Cheers -- Alexander Clouter .sigmonster says: Old musicians never die, they just decompose. -- 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