Cai Qian, le Fri 04 Jul 2008 11:23:10 +0800, a écrit : > $ /usr/bin/lscpu > Processor(s): 2 I would avoid the generic term "Processor(s)" and use "Socket(s)" instead. > CPU core(s): 2 There should be a CPU thread(s) lines here, as SMT is not always only two-way (see Sun's Niagara). > CPU(s): 8 > Vendor ID: GenuineIntel > CPU family: Itanium 2 > Model: 0 > CPU MHz: 1598.000005 > L1d cache: 16K > L1i cache: 16K > L2d cache: 256K > L2i cache: 1024K > L3 cache: 12288K > SMT: Yes This is then redundant with the field I proposed above. > NUMA node(s): 1 Mmm, for coherency, I would rather put that at the top, and divide the number of sockets by the number of nodes, to show the number of sockets per node. > #CPU,Core,Socket,L1d,L1i,L2d,L2i,L3 > 1,3,15,3,3,3,15,15 > 2,3,15,3,3,3,15,15 > 4,12,15,12,12,12,15,15 > 8,12,15,12,12,12,15,15 > 16,48,240,48,48,48,240,240 > 32,48,240,48,48,48,240,240 > 64,192,240,192,192,192,240,240 > 128,192,240,192,192,192,240,240 This is just a shuffling of the /sys information, and thus not much more readable... At least use hex! Else, I would suggest to give numbers to caches: give CPU0's caches number 0 and then CPU2's new caches number 1, etc. I.e. 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 2,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 3,1,0,1,1,1,0,0 4,2,1,2,2,2,1,1 5,2,1,2,2,2,1,1 6,3,1,3,3,3,1,1 7,3,1,3,3,3,1,1 > _______________________________________________________________ > | | | | | | | | | > | cpu0 | | | | | | | | > |______| core0 | | L1d | L1i | L2d | | | > | | | | 16K | 16K | 256K | | | > | cpu1 | | | | | | | | > |______|_______| processor0 |_____|_____|______| L2i | L3 | > | | | | | | | 1024K | 12288K | > | cpu2 | | | | | | | | > |______| core1 | | L1d | L1i | L2d | | | > | | | | 16K | 16K | 256K | | | > | cpu3 | | | | | | | | > |______|_______|____________|_____|_____|______|_______|________| > | | | | | | | | | > | cpu4 | | | | | | | | > |______| core2 | | L1d | L1i | L2d | | | > | | | | 16K | 16K | 256K | | | > | cpu5 | | | | | | | | > |______|_______| processor1 |_____|_____|______| L2i | L3 | > | | | | | | | 1024K | 12288K | > | cpu6 | | | | | | | | > |______| core3 | | L1d | L1i | L2d | | | > | | | | 16K | 16K | 256K | | | > | cpu7 | | | | | | | | > |______|_______|____________|_____|_____|______|_______|________| That would be an even more readable form, and I think it wouldn't be difficult to generate, except that you'll need to use some topology sorting (cpu numbers are not always in local order...) Samuel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
