RE: [patch]:MC/MT enabling/identification for IA-64

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2005-02-25 17:11:57
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:22:44 -0800, "Seth, Rohit" <rohit.seth@intel.com> said:

  >> Changing the formatting of /proc/cpuinfo only runs the risk of
  >> existing tools, without benefit to properly written applications.

  Rohit> I hope there are not that many apps that have this
  Rohit> behavior...particularly if they are (/want to be) portable.

I _hope_ the same, but what's the point to even run the risk of
breaking existing apps when there is no real benefit?

  Rohit> I think we should have some consistency (wherever possible)
  Rohit> in /proc/cpuinfo fields across architectures.  This will help
  Rohit> applications writers.  Currently siblings and cpu core fields
  Rohit> are already added for i386 and x86_64.

Hmmh, I don't see a "cpu core id" field in the x86 code.  Am I missing
something?

Printing the same number (# siblings/cores) for each CPU over and over
just seems stupid, especially when instead you can print a useful
value (core id/thread id).

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Feb 25 01:12:21 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:36 EST