On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:29 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Li-Ta Lo wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:40 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >> Hmm. So I'm confused -- I thought you said in #9 that "There should
> >> be just 2 physical sockets on the mainboard". So PLPA is now
> >> reporting 2 sockets, numbered correctly.
> >
> > I didn't say how plpa-info should report. I was giving you the output
> > of the plpa-info and it was wrong w.r.t what you are trying to fix. It
> > says there are 3 sockets which is still wrong.
>
> Hah! I missed that; my bad.
>
> >> [ollie_at_exponential plpa-info]$ ./plpa-info --topo
> >>> Kernel affinity support: yes
> >>> Kernel topology support: yes
> >>> Number of processor sockets: 3
> >
> >> I do have PLPA intentionally skipping reporting sockets that have no
> >> cores on them. Are you saying that plpa-info should report sockets
> >> with no cores? I chose not to do that because how would you know
> >> what they are? Linux only reports the sockets that are in use -- how
> >> would you know what sockets are not in use? For example, what if you
> >> populate a motherboard with 4 sockets in sockets 0 and 1 -- how would
> >> PLPA know that sockets 2 and 3 exist?
> >
> > The output still talks about socket without cores. It is right with
> > socket 1 (not counting/reporting it) but it is wrong with socket 2.
>
> Is the tarball attached to #9 still accurate? I was using that when
> testing the new stuff and I was getting 2 sockets displayed from plpa-
> info, and only showing 1 core on sockets 0 and 3.
>
No. I turned of SMT yesterday when answering you bug report.
How should I create the tarball again? Just tar czf ?
Ollie
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}