Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:53 -0500 Received: from momus.sc.intel.com ([143.183.152.8]:32199 "EHLO momus.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:30:51 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Nakajima, Jun" To: Alan Cox Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: RE: [PATCH] hyper-threading information in /proc/cpuinfo Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:36:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1969 Lines: 60 Looks like they don't want us to use "threads" for various reasons. Those could be even religious/branding issues, which I have no interests in. My interest is to have consistent format/info for HT cpuinfo among the kernels. So can you please change like: +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP + if (cpu_has_ht) { + seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]); + seq_printf(m, "logical cpus\t: %d per package\n", smp_num_siblings); + } +#endif This is consistent with the spec/manual from Intel. They use logical processor (and thread :-), physical processor, physical package, etc. Thanks, Jun -----Original Message----- From: Alan Cox [mailto:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:15 PM To: Nakajima, Jun Cc: Robert Love; 'Dave Jones'; 'akpm@digeo.com'; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; 'chrisl@vmware.com'; 'Martin J. Bligh' Subject: RE: [PATCH] hyper-threading information in /proc/cpuinfo On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 22:50, Nakajima, Jun wrote: > Sorry, > > Can you please change "siblings\t" to "threads\t\t". SuSE 8.1, for example, > is already doing it: Could do > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > + if (cpu_has_ht) { > + seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]); > + seq_printf(m, "threads\t\t: %d\n", smp_num_siblings); > + } > +#endif Im just wondering what we would then use to describe a true multiple cpu on a die x86. Im curious what the powerpc people think since they have this kind of stuff - is there a generic terminology they prefer ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/