Le 19/10/2020 à 14:50, Peter Zijlstra a écrit : > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 01:32:26PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:35:22 +0200 >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I'm confused by all of this. The core level is exactly what you seem to >>> want. >> It's the level above the core, whether in an multi-threaded core >> or a single threaded core. This may correspond to the level >> at which caches are shared (typically L3). Cores are already well >> represented via thread_siblings and similar. Extra confusion is that >> the current core_siblings (deprecated) sysfs interface, actually reflects >> the package level and ignores anything in between core and >> package (such as die on x86) > That seems wrong. core-mask should be whatever cores share L3. So on a > Intel Core2-Quad (just to pick an example) you should have 4 CPU in a > package, but only 2 CPUs for the core-mask. > > It just so happens that L3 and package were the same for a long while in > x86 land, although recent chips started breaking that trend. > > And I know nothing about the core-mask being depricated; it's what the > scheduler uses. It's not going anywhere. Only the sysfs filenames are deprecated: thread_siblings -> core_cpus core_siblings -> package_cpus New names reflect better what has been implemented/documented in the past (core_siblings=package_cpus are processors with same physical package id). And that's indeed different from the core-mask you are talking about above with Core2-Quad (that one has never been exposed anywhere in sysfs, except in the L3 cpumap). Brice
