| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:37:18 +0200
From: JA Magallón <jamagallon@....com>
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Inconsistency in /proc/cpuinfo about topology ?
Hi...
Probably there is something I don't understand, but it looks to me like an
inconsistency in the info given by /proc/cpuinfo about processor/core/thread
topology.
For new processors, data seems to account for each 'physycal id', all virtual
processors in the same package repeat the same info:
- Core i5:
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
cpu cores : 4
- Core i3:
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
cpu cores : 2
- Dual Xeon X5365
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
cpu cores : 4
physical id : 1
siblings : 4
cpu cores : 4
- Core Q9450
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
cpu cores : 4
but for older CPUs or lower end it is not the same:
- Dual P4-Xeon:
physical id : 0
siblings : 1
cpu cores : 1
physical id : 0
siblings : 1
cpu cores : 0
physical id : 3
siblings : 1
cpu cores : 1
physical id : 3
siblings : 1
cpu cores : 0
- Single P4 HT:
physical id : 0
siblings : 1
cpu cores : 1
physical id : 0
siblings : 1
cpu cores : 0
What am I missing ?
TIA
--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Winter is coming...
--
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