[patch] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix

[patch] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix

[Siddha, Suresh B]

Appended patch fixes

- broken sibling_map setup in x86_64

- grouping all the core and HT related cpuinfo fields.
  We are reasonably sure that adding new cpuinfo fields after "siblings" field,
  will not cause any app failure. Thats because today's /proc/cpuinfo
  format is completely different on x86, x86_64 and we haven't heard of any
  x86 app breakage because of this issue. Grouping these fields will 
  result in more or less common format on all architectures (ia64, x86 and 
  x86_64) and will cause less confusion.

Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>

diff -Nru linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c linux-mc/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c	2005-04-11 17:12:16.939435632 -0700
+++ linux-mc/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c	2005-04-11 17:13:31.757061624 -0700
@@ -98,6 +98,8 @@
 		seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[n]);
 		seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n",
 				c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings);
+		seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]);
+		seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
 	}
 #endif
 	
@@ -130,13 +132,6 @@
 		     c->loops_per_jiffy/(500000/HZ),
 		     (c->loops_per_jiffy/(5000/HZ)) % 100);
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	/* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of
-	   breaking user space parsers. */
-	seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[n]);
-	seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
-#endif
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
diff -Nru linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c linux-mc/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c	2005-04-11 17:12:17.074415112 -0700
+++ linux-mc/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c	2005-04-11 17:14:34.250561168 -0700
@@ -1179,6 +1179,8 @@
 		seq_printf(m, "physical id\t: %d\n", phys_proc_id[cpu]);
 		seq_printf(m, "siblings\t: %d\n",
 				c->x86_num_cores * smp_num_siblings);
+		seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[cpu]);
+		seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
 	}
 #endif	
 
@@ -1222,15 +1224,8 @@
 			}
 	}
 
-	seq_printf(m, "\n");
+	seq_printf(m, "\n\n");
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	/* Put new fields at the end to lower the probability of
-	   breaking user space parsers. */
-	seq_printf(m, "core id\t\t: %d\n", cpu_core_id[c - cpu_data]);
-	seq_printf(m, "cpu cores\t: %d\n", c->x86_num_cores);
-#endif
-	seq_printf(m, "\n");
 	return 0;
 }
 
diff -Nru linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c linux-mc/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c	2005-04-11 17:12:17.076414808 -0700
+++ linux-mc/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c	2005-04-11 17:41:52.704478312 -0700
@@ -652,7 +652,7 @@
 		int i;
 		if (smp_num_siblings > 1) {
 			for_each_online_cpu (i) {
-				if (cpu_core_id[cpu] == phys_proc_id[i]) {
+				if (cpu_core_id[cpu] == cpu_core_id[i]) {
 					siblings++;
 					cpu_set(i, cpu_sibling_map[cpu]);
 				}

Re: [patch] x86, x86_64: dual core proc-cpuinfo and sibling-map fix

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:42:29PM -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Appended patch fixes
> 
> - broken sibling_map setup in x86_64
> 
> - grouping all the core and HT related cpuinfo fields.
>   We are reasonably sure that adding new cpuinfo fields after "siblings" field,
>   will not cause any app failure. Thats because today's /proc/cpuinfo
>   format is completely different on x86, x86_64 and we haven't heard of any
>   x86 app breakage because of this issue. Grouping these fields will 
>   result in more or less common format on all architectures (ia64, x86 and 
>   x86_64) and will cause less confusion.

Ok from my side.

Andrew, please include that one in the batch going to Linus if there
is still enough time.

-Andi