RE: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of socket

[Duran, Leo]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: Duran, Leo <leo.duran@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Suthikulpanit, Suravee
> <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx>;
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of
> socket
> 
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:42:32PM +0000, Duran, Leo wrote:
> 
> First of all, please do not top-post.
> 
> > Are you saying that "amd.c' should be scheduler-aware?.. Really?
> 
> Please read again what I said.
> 
> > If so, are you saying that information returned by kernel-defined
> > terms like 'Package', 'Core',
> 
> "information returned by kernel-defined terms"... hmmm, I don't know what
> that means.
[Duran, Leo] 
I'm referring to: Documentation\x86\ topology.txt
Started by Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> and Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>.

> 
> > etc, should done in the context of understanding the scheduler, rather
> > than in the context what is being documented for those terms to
> > actually mean or represent.
> 
> -ENOPARSE.
> 
> > I'd hope that "amd.c" should be doing the latter... and that perhaps
> > we're simply not returning information as specified by the intended
> > definition of those terms (in which case we need to fix our code)
> 
> -ENOPARSE.
> 
> I can't really understand what you're trying to tell me here.
> 
[Duran, Leo] 
OK, let me try again:
I'd hope that "amd.c" returns 'Package', 'Core', et al, in compliance with the document I referred to above.
Allowing code that consumes the returned information to make (hopefully optimal) decisions in a vendor-agnostic way.

> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.