On 28.05.2020 16:55, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 08:17 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 27.05.2020 00:00, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> Just in case, is there a >>> way to identify them easily, like with a mask or something, in the >>> code >>> already? >> >> cpu_sibling_mask still gets used for both, so there's no mask >> to use. As per set_cpu_sibling_map() you can look at >> cpu_data[].compute_unit_id to tell, but that's of course x86- >> specific (as is the entire compute unit concept). >> > Right. And thanks for the pointers. > > But then, what I am understanding by having a look there is that I > indeed can use (again, appropriately wrapped) x86_num_siblings, for > telling, in this function, whether a CPU has any, and if yes how many, > HT (Intel) or CU (AMD) siblings in total, although some of them may > currently be offline. > > Which means I will be treating HTs and CUs the same which, thinking > more about it (and thinking actually to CUs, rather than to any cache > sharing relationship), does make sense for this feature. > > Does this make sense, or am I missing or misinterpreting anything?
Well, it effectively answers the question I had raised: "What about HT vs AMD Fam15's CUs? Do you want both to be treated the same here?" Jan
