[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <561D75ED.9080807@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:21:49 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Phil Pokorny <ppokorny@...guincomputing.com>
Cc: Lukasz Odzioba <lukasz.odzioba@...el.com>, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32
to 128.
On 10/13/2015 02:05 PM, Phil Pokorny wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote:
>>> A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than
>>> required minimum for Xeon Phi processor.
>
>> Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum
>> for Xeon Phi ?
>
> Not meaning to be snarky, but this was answered in the first sentence.
> 64 is less than the required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. So it
> must be 65 or greater...
>
That is an assumption, not an answer, sorry.
Guenter
> I wouldn't expect Intel to give you any more detail than that. And it
> might be that 64 is actually enough for now but would soon (months or
> less than a year) be overrun by a newer processor. So rather than
> submit multiple minor patches, just submit one now that should be
> "enough"
>
> If you think this is a waste of RAM, we could make it a kernel
> configuration option and let it be configured by the distro or user.
> But if most distros select 128 to be able to support Xeon Phi, then
> there might not be a reason for the additional complexity.
>
> Phil P.
>
--
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