From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Phil Pokorny <ppokorny@penguincomputing.com>
Cc: Lukasz Odzioba <lukasz.odzioba@intel.com>,
fenghua.yu@intel.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:21:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <561D75ED.9080807@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAek22GTG6o0QYU_WUJaASafk_Gfv03y_x056tiGtzz=w41yOg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/13/2015 02:05 PM, Phil Pokorny wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote:
>>> A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than
>>> required minimum for Xeon Phi processor.
>
>> Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum
>> for Xeon Phi ?
>
> Not meaning to be snarky, but this was answered in the first sentence.
> 64 is less than the required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. So it
> must be 65 or greater...
>
That is an assumption, not an answer, sorry.
Guenter
> I wouldn't expect Intel to give you any more detail than that. And it
> might be that 64 is actually enough for now but would soon (months or
> less than a year) be overrun by a newer processor. So rather than
> submit multiple minor patches, just submit one now that should be
> "enough"
>
> If you think this is a waste of RAM, we could make it a kernel
> configuration option and let it be configured by the distro or user.
> But if most distros select 128 to be able to support Xeon Phi, then
> there might not be a reason for the additional complexity.
>
> Phil P.
>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Phil Pokorny <ppokorny@penguincomputing.com>
Cc: Lukasz Odzioba <lukasz.odzioba@intel.com>,
fenghua.yu@intel.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:21:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <561D75ED.9080807@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAek22GTG6o0QYU_WUJaASafk_Gfv03y_x056tiGtzz=w41yOg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/13/2015 02:05 PM, Phil Pokorny wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote:
>>> A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than
>>> required minimum for Xeon Phi processor.
>
>> Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum
>> for Xeon Phi ?
>
> Not meaning to be snarky, but this was answered in the first sentence.
> 64 is less than the required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. So it
> must be 65 or greater...
>
That is an assumption, not an answer, sorry.
Guenter
> I wouldn't expect Intel to give you any more detail than that. And it
> might be that 64 is actually enough for now but would soon (months or
> less than a year) be overrun by a newer processor. So rather than
> submit multiple minor patches, just submit one now that should be
> "enough"
>
> If you think this is a waste of RAM, we could make it a kernel
> configuration option and let it be configured by the distro or user.
> But if most distros select 128 to be able to support Xeon Phi, then
> there might not be a reason for the additional complexity.
>
> Phil P.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-13 21:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-12 11:53 [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128 Lukasz Odzioba
2015-10-12 11:53 ` Lukasz Odzioba
2015-10-13 20:31 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2015-10-13 20:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-10-13 21:05 ` [lm-sensors] " Phil Pokorny
2015-10-13 21:05 ` Phil Pokorny
2015-10-13 21:21 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2015-10-13 21:21 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-10-13 22:02 ` Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-13 22:02 ` Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-13 22:26 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2015-10-13 22:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-10-13 22:45 ` [lm-sensors] " Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-13 22:45 ` Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-14 1:17 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2015-10-14 1:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-10-14 11:39 ` [lm-sensors] " Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-14 11:39 ` Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-14 14:04 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2015-10-14 14:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-10-15 22:08 ` [lm-sensors] " Odzioba, Lukasz
2015-10-15 22:08 ` Odzioba, Lukasz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=561D75ED.9080807@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
--cc=lukasz.odzioba@intel.com \
--cc=ppokorny@penguincomputing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.