From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424210AbcBQVYL (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:24:11 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:15906 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424184AbcBQVYI (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:24:08 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,462,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="917967629" From: Andi Kleen To: Stephane Eranian Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Harish Chegondi , Kan Liang , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data References: <20160217132903.767990400@linutronix.de> <20160217133932.279611021@linutronix.de> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:24:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Stephane Eranian's message of "Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:19:15 -0800") Message-ID: <878u2j9gjr.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephane Eranian writes: >> > Let's assume you have a system with 48 cpus with HT on, then > you have 2 processor sockets, which is correct. But then you further > assume that topology_physical_package_id() will return 0 or 1 in this case. > In other words, that physical id are always assigned from 0 to N in a contiguous > manner. > > Do we know for sure that this is always the case for all Intel systems > and that no > weird BIOS is assigning random numbers for phys_proc_id? I don't believe that is a safe assumption. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only