Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 2 PATCH 03/16] hw/i386: Introduce X86CPUTopoInfo to contain topology info

From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
To: "Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@amd.com>
Cc: "mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"armbru@redhat.com" <armbru@redhat.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"imammedo@redhat.com" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"ssg.sos.staff" <ssg.sos.staff@amd.com>,
	"rth@twiddle.net" <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 2 PATCH 03/16] hw/i386: Introduce X86CPUTopoInfo to contain topology info
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:54:06 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191011035406.GF29387@habkost.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <156779711572.21957.10722611828264773686.stgit@localhost.localdomain>

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 07:11:57PM +0000, Moger, Babu wrote:
> This is an effort to re-arrange few data structure for better
> readability. Add X86CPUTopoInfo which will have all the topology
> informations required to build the cpu topology. There is no
> functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>
> ---
[...]
> +typedef struct X86CPUTopoInfo {
> +    unsigned numa_nodes;
> +    unsigned nr_sockets;
> +    unsigned nr_dies;
> +    unsigned nr_cores;
> +    unsigned nr_threads;
> +} X86CPUTopoInfo;

With more complex topologies, the meaning of each of those fields
may be ambiguous.  e.g.: is nr_cores cores per die, cores per
ccx, or cores per socket?  Maybe we should use this opportunity
to use more explicit names like threads_per_core, cores_per_die,
dies_per_socket.

-- 
Eduardo