From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
"zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com" <zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 0/1] x86: cpu topology fix and question on x86_max_cores
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:00:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/SIRmCE1KJdsRBT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87edqkosty.ffs@tglx>
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:49:45PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I thought of improving this by parsing all the valid APIC-IDs in MADT
> > during BSP bootup, and get such information by decoding the APIC-IDs
> > using the APIC-ID layout information retrieved from BSP. But this is
> > likely to be a fertile new source of bugs as Dave concerned.
>
> The APIC-IDs are only usefull if there is an architected scheme how they
> are assigned. Is there such a thing?
Isn't that given through CPUID? Or are we worried each CPU will have
different values in the topology leafs?
We really should have added that CPUID uniformity sanity check a long
while ago :-(
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-21 9:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-20 3:28 [RFC PATCH V2 0/1] x86: cpu topology fix and question on x86_max_cores Zhang Rui
2023-02-20 3:28 ` [PATCH V2 1/1] x86/topology: fix erroneous smp_num_siblings on Intel Hybrid platform Zhang Rui
2023-02-20 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-21 8:34 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-03-13 2:05 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 10:36 ` [RFC PATCH V2 0/1] x86: cpu topology fix and question on x86_max_cores Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-20 14:40 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-20 14:33 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-20 22:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-02-21 8:01 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 22:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-02-21 8:26 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-03-07 16:10 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-03-08 2:46 ` Brown, Len
2023-02-21 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-21 10:09 ` Borislav Petkov
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=Y/SIRmCE1KJdsRBT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox