On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 06:34:37PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > I've seen examples in the wild of the cluster attribute having > non-zero value on x86_64. > > This is obviously quite confusing, but it's the information that > Linux exposes to userspace and we don't really have a way to tell > apart a valid die/cluster ID from a dummy one. > > What ultimately matters is that the underlying assumptions about > topology are respected, which they are: in the x86_64 cases that > I have analyzed, for example, each "cluster" contained exactly > one core, so any program that would use this information to > influence guest topology decisions would be unaffected by the > additional level showing up in the hierarchy. > > In an attempt to reduce confusion, remove any reference to any > specific value for the attributes having any special meaning > attached to it. > > In fact, since there are plans to make it possible to create > guests with multiple CPU clusters on x86_64, rework the note > into a more generic warning cautioning users that an attribute > showing up here does not imply that the same attribute can be > used when defining a guest CPU topology. > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <[email protected]> > --- > docs/formatcaps.rst | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
