RE: [PATCH v3]Export cpu topology by sysfs

From: Zhang, Yanmin <>
Date: 2006-01-25 13:05:15
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [] On Behalf Of Zhang, Yanmin
>>Sent: 2006年1月9日 14:48
>>To: Nathan Lynch; Yanmin Zhang
>>Cc:;;;; Siddha, Suresh B; Shah, Rajesh;
>>Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>>Subject: RE: [PATCH v3]Export cpu topology by sysfs
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: [] On Behalf Of Nathan Lynch
>>>>Sent: 2006年1月9日 13:10
>>>>To: Yanmin Zhang
>>>>Cc:;;;; Siddha, Suresh B; Shah, Rajesh;
>>>>Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>>>>Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]Export cpu topology by sysfs
>>>>> 2) Set consistent default values for the 4 attributes.
>>>>> If one architecture wants to support this feature, it just needs to
>>>>> implement 4 defines, typically in file include/asm-XXX/topology.h.
>>>>> The 4 defines are:
>>>>> #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)
>>>>> #define topology_core_id(cpu)
>>>>> #define topology_thread_siblings(cpu)
>>>>> #define topology_core_siblings(cpu)
>>>>> The type of **_id is int.
>>>>> The type of siblings is cpumask_t.
>>>>> To be consistent on all architectures, the 4 attributes should have
>>>>> deafult values if their values are unavailable. Below is the rule.
>>>>> 1) physical_package_id: If cpu has no physical package id, -1 is the
>>>>> default value.
>>>>> 2) core_id: If cpu doesn't support multi-core, its core id is 0.
>>>>Why not -1 as with the physical package id?  0 could be a valid core
>>If the cpu has only 1 core, we could call it single-core, so it's reasonable to use 0 as its core id.
>>>>> 3) thread_siblings: Just include itself, if the cpu doesn't support
>>>>> HT/multi-thread.
>>>>> 4) core_siblings: Just include itself, if the cpu doesn't support
>>>>> multi-core and HT/Multi-thread.
>>>>Really, I think the least confusing interface would not export those
>>>>attributes which are not relevant for the system.  E.g. if the system
>>>>isn't multi-core, you don't see core_id and core_siblings attributes.
>>>>Failing that, let's at least have consistent, unambiguous values for
>>>>the ids which are not applicable.
>>Current kernel will output core id by /proc/cpuinfo if a physical cpu has 2 threads, no matter if it's a multi-core, or just a multi-thread.
>>To be consistent with /proc/cpuinfo, I think we need export core id and its default value is 0.
>>>>> +static int __cpuinit topology_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
>>>>> +		unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
>>>>> +	struct sys_device *sys_dev;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	sys_dev = get_cpu_sysdev(cpu);
>>>>> +	switch (action) {
>>>>> +		case CPU_ONLINE:
>>>>> +			topology_add_dev(sys_dev);
>>>>> +			break;
>>>>> +		case CPU_DEAD:
>>>>> +			topology_remove_dev(sys_dev);
>>>>> +			break;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +	return NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>> +}
>>>>I still oppose this bit.  I want the attributes there for powerpc even
>>>>for offline cpus -- the topology information (if obtainable, which it
>>>>is on powerpc) is useful regardless of the cpu's online state.  The
>>>>attributes should appear when a cpu is made present, and go away when
>>>>a cpu is removed.
>>As my previous email says, there are concerns/issues to do so. A compromise is that the patch could register a sysdev driver. When the
>>cpu becomes offline from online, we don't delete the topology kobj. The compromise has a defect. If the cpu is never online since machine
>>boots, the topology info of the cpu is incorrect.
>>>>This week I'll try to do an implementation for powerpc.

Is your implementation for powerpc ready?

Could the patch of version 3 be put into mm tree firstly?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Jan 25 13:06:17 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-01-25 13:06:26 EST