Message-ID: <4AFB2298.5040903@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:46:16 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-2.7.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
CC: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: fix confusing name of /proc/cpuinfo "ht" flag
References: <200911112134.34261.bzolnier@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200911112134.34261.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 948
Lines: 26

On 11/11/2009 02:34 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> "ht" flag indicates only ability to detect siblings not HT presence itself.
> 
> Inspired by:
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/2009/11/10/common-hyperthreading-misconception/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> ---
> It could be that there are some user-space programs depending on "ht"
> flag so the patch is marked as RFC..

If a cpu is capable of ht but doesn't have any siblings, do we actually
care?

If many people consider the "ht" flag to indicate that hyperthreading is
actually available, what about instead changing the meaning of the "ht"
flag to indicate that there actually are siblings?

Chris

--
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/