Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 1/25] x86/cpufeatures: Enumerate Intel Hybrid Technology feature bit | From | Srinivas Pandruvada <> | Date | Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:42:47 -0800 |
| |
On Wed, 2021-03-10 at 14:25 -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:01:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:46:44AM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > But this series provides the use case, right? Kan's patches > > > handle PMU counters > > > that may differ cross types of CPUs. In patch 2, > > > get_hybrid_params() > > > needs to check first if X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU is enabled before > > > querying the hybrid parameters. Otherwise, we would need to rely > > > on the > > > maximum level of CPUID, which may not be reliable. > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:33:54AM -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada > > wrote: > > > We are working on changes to P-State driver for hybrid CPUs using > > > this > > > define. They are still work in progress. > > > But this patch can be submitted later with our set of changes. > > > > Answering to both with a single mail: > > > > I don't have a problem with X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU - I simply don't > > want > > to show "hybrid_cpu" in /proc/cpuinfo unless there's a valid use > > case > > for userspace to know that it is running on a hybrid CPU. > > Ah, I get your point now. You would like to see > > #define X86_FEATURE_HYBRID_CPU (18*32+15) /* "" This > part has CPUs of more than one type */ > > Right? Now your first comment makes sense. > > Srinivas, Kan, I don't think we need to expose "hybrid_cpu" in > /proc/cpuinfo, do we? I don't see any need.
Thanks, Srinivas
> > Thanks and BR, > Ricardo
| |