linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904052033220.1802@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:33:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:53:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> > > Added sysfs core_threads, core_threads_list
> > > 
> > > 	Added this attribute to show which threads siblings in a core.
> > > 	Exactly same as "thread_siblings", a name now deprecated.
> > > 	This attribute name and definition is immune to future
> > > 	topology changes.
> > > 
> > > 	Suggested by Brice.
> > 
> > I think I prefer 's/threads/cpus/g' on that. Threads makes me think SMT,
> > and I don't think there's any guarantee the part in question will have
> > SMT on.
> 
> I think 'threads' is a bit confusing as well. We seem to be using 'cpu'
> everywhere for something we can schedule tasks on, including the sysfs
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/ subdirs for each SMT thread on SMT systems.
> 
> Another thing that I find confusing is that with this series we a new
> die id/mask which is totally unrelated to the DIE level in the
> sched_domain hierarchy. We should rename DIE level to something that
> reflects what it really is. If we can agree on that ;-)
> 
> NODE level?

Any conclusions here?