]> err.no Git - linux-2.6/commitdiff
[PATCH] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix
authorSiddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:25:20 +0000 (15:25 -0700)
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org>
Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:25:20 +0000 (15:25 -0700)
- broken sibling_map setup in x86_64

- grouping all the core and HT related cpuinfo fields.
  We are reasonably sure that adding new cpuinfo fields after "siblings" field,
  will not cause any app failure. Thats because today's /proc/cpuinfo
  format is completely different on x86, x86_64 and we haven't heard of any
  x86 app breakage because of this issue. Grouping these fields will
  result in more or less common format on all architectures (ia64, x86 and
  x86_64) and will cause less confusion.

Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c
arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c
arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c

index 0f1125b15b76a8b6e903bcb566132b1095051cb8..4f28eba7fb8a7ada72f1f24082c177f2a8d35dc0 100644 (file)
@@ -98,6 +98,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
                seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]);
                seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n",
                                c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings);
+               seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]);
+               seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
        }
 #endif
        
@@ -130,13 +132,6 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
                     c->loops_per_jiffy/(500000/HZ),
                     (c->loops_per_jiffy/(5000/HZ)) % 100);
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-       /* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of
-          breaking user space parsers. */
-       seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]);
-       seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
-#endif
-
        return 0;
 }
 
index 7ba443584a0c61f5c8a0f1d02af788a3f2e7a329..b18c114c7648ed3190490e196d3eea2d65c277d1 100644 (file)
@@ -1152,6 +1152,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
                seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[cpu]);
                seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n",
                                c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings);
+               seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[cpu]);
+               seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
        }
 #endif 
 
@@ -1195,15 +1197,8 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
                        }
        }
 
-       seq_printf(m, "\n");
+       seq_printf(m, "\n\n");
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-       /* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of
-          breaking user space parsers. */
-       seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[c - cpu_data]);
-       seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
-#endif
-       seq_printf(m, "\n");
        return 0;
 }
 
index eca01e82d3c77a9c87e38fd22fb4fe144c570726..73f7e8b9543aa55051e6a912e231db6ad6c8aa3b 100644 (file)
@@ -652,7 +652,7 @@ static __cpuinit void detect_siblings(void)
                int i;
                if (smp_num_siblings > 1) {
                        for_each_online_cpu (i) {
-                               if (cpu_core_id[cpu] == phys_proc_id[i]) {
+                               if (cpu_core_id[cpu] == cpu_core_id[i]) {
                                        siblings++;
                                        cpu_set(i, cpu_sibling_map[cpu]);
                                }