From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932216AbbJMVVz (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:21:55 -0400 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:37466 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932072AbbJMVVw (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:21:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128. To: Phil Pokorny References: <1444650812-17398-1-git-send-email-lukasz.odzioba@intel.com> <20151013203134.GA28106@roeck-us.net> Cc: Lukasz Odzioba , fenghua.yu@intel.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <561D75ED.9080807@roeck-us.net> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:21:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/13/2015 02:05 PM, Phil Pokorny wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck 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. >