MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161010164543.GA30442@intel.com>
References: <1475894763-64683-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1475894763-64683-2-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <CACbG309=ERARyRQCxWG6GrgRG91TPcSOO-ieTzBEe7d94uM=hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161010164543.GA30442@intel.com>
From: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:48:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CACbG308vJ45kM6G22Rketr+BZRrrCa_1R3gg4XNxiMRWtLC1gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/18] Documentation, ABI: Add a document entry for
 cache id
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1197
Lines: 33

On 10 October 2016 at 11:45, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 12:11:08PM -0500, Nilay Vaish wrote:
>> On 7 October 2016 at 21:45, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
>> > From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
>
>> > +               caches typically exist per core, but there may not be a
>> > +               power of two cores on a socket, so these caches may be
>> > +               numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, ...
>> > +
>>
>> While it is ok that the caches are not numbered contiguously, it is
>> unclear how this is related to number of cores on a socket being a
>> power of 2 or not.
>
> That's a side effect of the x86 algorithm to generate the unique ID
> which uses a shift to put the socket number in some upper bits while
> leaving the "id within a socket" in the low bits.
>
> I don't think it worth documenting here, but I noticed that we don't
> keep the IDs within a core contguous either.  On my 24 core Broadwell
> they are not 0 ... 23 then a gap from 24 to 31.  I actually have on
> socket 0:
>
>  0,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5
>  8,  9, 10, 11, 12, 13
> 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
> 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
>

Thanks for the info.

--
Nilay