Re: [PATCH -perfbook v2] cpu: make Quick Quiz 3.6 more explicit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 08:07:24AM +0800, zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Rewrite Quick Quiz 3.6 for clarity and explicitness, so that the
> firsttime reader know that another choice is CPU 0 sharing a core
> with CPU 1.
> 
> This change was identified by Chinese version editor Yunjing Li in 
> the course of translating the book to Chinese.
> 
> Reported-by: Chinese version editor YunJing Li
> Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou<zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>

Thank you!  I have queued this one in place of your original.

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  cpu/overheads.tex | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/cpu/overheads.tex b/cpu/overheads.tex
> index 1ee9c52f..a2ec2998 100644
> --- a/cpu/overheads.tex
> +++ b/cpu/overheads.tex
> @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ CAS and lock, respectively.
>  \QuickQuiz{
>  	\Cref{tab:cpu:CPU 0 View of Synchronization Mechanisms on 8-Socket System With Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 CPUs at 2.10GHz}
>  	shows CPU~0 sharing a core with CPU~224.
> -	Shouldn't that instead be CPU~1???
> +	However, isn't it more logical for CPU 0
> +	to share a core with CPU 1 instead of CPU 224???
>  }\QuickQuizAnswer{
>  	It is easy to be sympathetic to this view, but the file
>  	\path{/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cache/index0/shared_cpu_list}
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux