On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:53:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 01:19:58AM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > > Added sysfs package_threads, package_threads_list > > > > Added this attribute to show threads siblings in a package. > > Exactly same as "core_siblings above", a name now deprecated. > > This attribute name and definition is immune to future > > topology changes. > > > > Suggested by Brice. > > > > Added sysfs die_threads, die_threads_list > > > > Added this attribute to show which threads siblings in a die. > > V1 had proposed putting this info into "core_siblings", but we > > decided to leave that legacy attribute alone. > > This attribute name and definition is immune to future > > topology changes. > > > > On a single die-package system this attribute has same contents > > as "package_threads". > > > > Suggested by Brice. > > > > Added sysfs core_threads, core_threads_list > > > > Added this attribute to show which threads siblings in a core. > > Exactly same as "thread_siblings", a name now deprecated. > > This attribute name and definition is immune to future > > topology changes. > > > > Suggested by Brice. > > I think I prefer 's/threads/cpus/g' on that. Threads makes me think SMT, > and I don't think there's any guarantee the part in question will have > SMT on.
I think 'threads' is a bit confusing as well. We seem to be using 'cpu' everywhere for something we can schedule tasks on, including the sysfs /sys/devices/system/cpu/ subdirs for each SMT thread on SMT systems. Another thing that I find confusing is that with this series we a new die id/mask which is totally unrelated to the DIE level in the sched_domain hierarchy. We should rename DIE level to something that reflects what it really is. If we can agree on that ;-) NODE level? Morten
