Hi, Ingo, Thanks for reviewing this patch series. On Sat, 2022-08-13 at 12:44 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Intel AlderLake-N platforms where there are Ecores only, the > > Ecore > > Module topology is enumerated via CPUID.1F Module level, which has > > not > > been supported by Linux kernel yet. > > > > This exposes two issues in current CPUID.1F handling code. > > 1. Linux interprets the Module id bits as package id and > > erroneously > > reports a multi module system as a multi-package system. > > 2. Linux excludes the unknown Module id bits from the core_id, and > > results > > in duplicate core_id’s shown in a package after the first issue > > solved. > > > > Plus that, a third problem is observed on Intel Hybrid ADL-S/P > > platforms. > > The return value of CPUID.1F SMT level EBX (number of siblings) > > differs on > > Pcore CPUs and Ecore CPUs, and results in inconsistent > > smp_num_siblings > > value based on the Pcore/Ecore CPU enumeration order. This could > > bring > > some potential issues although we have not observed any > > functionalities > > issues so far. > > > > Patch 1/7 and 2/7 fix the first two issues. And at the same time, > > it > > reveals a reality that the core_id could be sparse on platforms > > with > > CPUID.1F support. > > Patch 3/7 improves coretemp driver code to be able to handle sparse > > core > > id, which is the only driver that uses core_id as array index and > > run on > > platforms with CPUID.1F support. > > > > Patch 4/7 to 7/7 propose a fix for the third problem and update the > > related Documents. > > Yeah, so patch 3/7 probably needs to come first - otherwise there's a > window for bisection breakage. Sure, I will re-arrange this. thanks, rui
