RE: [PATCH] hyper-threading information in /proc/cpuinfo

[Nakajima, Jun]

Looks like they don't want us to use "threads" for various reasons. Those
could be even religious/branding issues, which I have no interests in. My
interest is to have consistent format/info for HT cpuinfo among the kernels.

So can you please change like:

+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+	if (cpu_has_ht) {
+		seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]);
+		seq_printf(m, "logical cpus\t: %d per package\n",
smp_num_siblings);
+	}
+#endif

This is consistent with the spec/manual from Intel. They use logical
processor (and thread :-), physical processor, physical package, etc.

Thanks,
Jun

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:15 PM
To: Nakajima, Jun
Cc: Robert Love; 'Dave Jones'; '[e-mail]';
'[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'Martin J. Bligh'
Subject: RE: [PATCH] hyper-threading information in /proc/cpuinfo

On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 22:50, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> Sorry,
> 
> Can you please change "siblings\t" to "threads\t\t". SuSE 8.1, for
example,
> is already doing it:

Could do
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	if (cpu_has_ht) {
> +		seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]);
> +		seq_printf(m, "threads\t\t: %d\n", smp_num_siblings);
> +	}
> +#endif

Im just wondering what we would then use to describe a true multiple cpu
on a die x86. Im curious what the powerpc people think since they have
this kind of stuff - is there a generic terminology they prefer ?