[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1F668163772FA946975B9466A9DFF729B6A3@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 21:13:19 +0000
From: "Rao, Nikhil" <nikhil.rao@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: Removing unnecessary check in detect_ht
Nothing apart from what you mention - bootlog message and SMP instead of SMT.
Nikhil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@...e.hu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:08 PM
> To: Rao, Nikhil
> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; hpa@...or.com;
> x86@...nel.org; Siddha, Suresh B; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Removing unnecessary check in detect_ht
>
>
> * Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch removes a check that prevents correct CPU topology setup
> > when cpuid extensions for topology enumeration are not supported and
> > the number of processors reported to the OS is smaller than
> > smp_num_siblings
>
> What bad effect was observed, exactly? An annoying warning in the
> bootlog and
> incorrect scheduler domain setup (SMP instead of SMT) - or something
> else as
> well?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
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