linux-kernel - Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data

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:	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:24:08 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...el.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data

Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> writes:

>>
> Let's assume  you have a system with 48 cpus with HT on, then
> you have  2 processor sockets, which is correct. But then you further
> assume that  topology_physical_package_id() will return 0 or 1 in this case.
> In other words, that physical id are always assigned from 0 to N in a contiguous
> manner.
>
> Do we know for sure that this is always the case for all Intel systems
> and that no
> weird BIOS is assigning random numbers for phys_proc_id?

I don't believe that is a safe assumption.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only