linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] powerpc/cacheinfo: Print correct cache-sibling map/list for L2 cache

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: <20201215084410.GE1239129@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:14:10 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] powerpc/cacheinfo: Print correct cache-sibling
 map/list for L2 cache

* Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2020-12-10 16:08:59]:

> From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> On POWER platforms where only some groups of threads within a core
> share the L2-cache (indicated by the ibm,thread-groups device-tree
> property), we currently print the incorrect shared_cpu_map/list for
> L2-cache in the sysfs.
> 
> This patch reports the correct shared_cpu_map/list on such platforms.
> 
> Example:
> On a platform with "ibm,thread-groups" set to
>                  00000001 00000002 00000004 00000000
>                  00000002 00000004 00000006 00000001
>                  00000003 00000005 00000007 00000002
>                  00000002 00000004 00000000 00000002
>                  00000004 00000006 00000001 00000003
>                  00000005 00000007
> 

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju