linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/cpu/topology: Implement the CPU type sysfs interface

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:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:05:36 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/cpu/topology: Implement the CPU type sysfs
 interface

On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 10:55:06AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > Recent Intel processors combine CPUs with different types of micro-
> > architecture in the same package. There may be applications interested in
> > knowing the type topology of the system. For instance, it can be used to
> > to determine which subsets of CPUs share a common feature.
> > 
> > Implement cpu_type sysfs interfaces for Intel processors.
> > 
> > For example, in a system with four Intel Atom CPUs and one Intel Core CPU,
> > these entries look as below. In this example, the native model IDs for
> > both types of CPUs are 0:
> > 
> > user@...t:~$: ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/types
> > intel_atom_0 intel_core_0
> > 
> > user@...t:~$ ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/types/intel_atom_0
> > cpulist cpumap
> > 
> > user@...t:~$ ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/types/intel_core_0
> > cpulist cpumap
> > 
> > user@...t:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/types/intel_atom/cpumap
> > 0f
> > 
> > user@...t:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/types/intel_atom/cpulist
> > 0-3
> > 
> > user@...t:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/types/intel_core/cpumap
> > 10
> > 
> > user@...t:~$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/types/intel_core/cpulist
> > 4
> 
> You used the same changelog text here as you did in patch 1/4, why?

In both changesets, if merged, somebody could conveniently do git show
on either commit quickly see the result intent of the changeset.

Would it make it better if in patch 1/4 I put an hypothetical generic
example?

Something like:

user@...t:~$: ls /sys/devices/system/cpu/types
<arch>_<type_a> <arch><type_b>

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo