On 4/9/2013 11:38 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:25:16AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
Why not let all cores just create their individual kobject and skip
this "shared" nb->bank4 concept ? Any disadvantage to that (apart from
the obvious storage bloat?).
Well, bank4 is shared across cores on the northbridge in *hardware*.
Well, yes I was aware of that :)
So it is only logical to represent the hardware layout correctly in
software.
Also, if you want to configure any settings over one core's sysfs nodes,
you want those to be visible across all cores automagically:
Hmm, yes of course. This of course breaks on our slave servers when the
shared mechanism doesn't work properly (i.e NB not visible). Then all
cores gets individual kobjects and there can be discrepancies between
what the hardware is programmed to and what is reflected in /sys on some
cores..
Ok, we go with our first approach to not create MC4 at all if NB isn't
visible.
We'll redo the patch against the tip:x86/ras branch.
Cheers,
Steffen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
