David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Mike Travis wrote:
I'm not saying it would be illegal, merely that it would be harm
readability. Based on how apic id's are formed from processor ids, though,
I think we're really talking about an upper limit (128) that will never be
reached.
We actually have many, many more than that by adding on some extra bits
to the CPU's apicid. These select which blade in the system to target.
Maybe I've been vague in my rationale for why this limit will probably
never be reached. The way apic ids are constructed, with physical and
logical processor ids, it tends to lend itself to ranges where
bitmap_scnlistprintf() can specify a large number of apic ids with
relatively few ASCII characters because logical processors typically do
not have differing pxms. For us to reach the 128 character upper bound,
scnlistprintf() would need to have many, many distinct ranges; your
example showed two ranges per pxm (many more machines would have only a
single range). In other words, we're not predicting to have
"1-2,4-6,8-9,11-13,15-17," etc, that we often have with nodemasks.
Yes, you are correct. (I was confused... ;-)
I believe the disjointed ranges came from the hyperthread cpus..? Which if
true means there'll probably be as many distinct ranges as there are threads
per core?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
