RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > That is just in the comment. The actual limit is still 128. Ok, sure. Thank you for your help in driving this change upstream. Thanks, Lukas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > That is just in the comment. The actual limit is still 128. Ok, sure. Thank you for your help in driving this change upstream. Thanks, Lukas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/14/2015 04:39 AM, Odzioba, Lukasz wrote: On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: Applied, after fixing up the subject and listing the current required limit of 72 cores for Xeon Phi (per published information). Guenter sorry for inconvenience I forgot that core

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Applied, after fixing up the subject and listing the current required limit > of 72 cores for Xeon Phi (per published information). Guenter sorry for inconvenience I forgot that core enumeration on KNL is not continuous, so some

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Applied, after fixing up the subject and listing the current required limit > of 72 cores for Xeon Phi (per published information). Guenter sorry for inconvenience I forgot that core enumeration on KNL is not continuous, so some

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/14/2015 04:39 AM, Odzioba, Lukasz wrote: On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: Applied, after fixing up the subject and listing the current required limit of 72 cores for Xeon Phi (per published information). Guenter sorry for inconvenience I forgot that core

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/12/2015 04:53 AM, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. Currently driver is not able to handle cores with core ID greater than 32. Such attempt ends up with the following error in dmesg: coretemp

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Pardon my ignorance ... those are Xeon Phi processors, and support up to > 244 threads (for Knights Corner). Programming datasheet isn't easily > available, > so I have to guess a bit. Following the processor numbering scheme of

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/13/2015 03:02 PM, Odzioba, Lukasz wrote: On Tuesday, October 12, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum for Xeon Phi ? It would be fine today, but it will be not enough in 2016 and we would like to give GNU/Linux

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum > for Xeon Phi ? It would be fine today, but it will be not enough in 2016 and we would like to give GNU/Linux distributions some time to propagate this patch.

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/13/2015 02:05 PM, Phil Pokorny wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. Why 128 instead of a

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: > > A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than > > required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. > Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: > A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than > required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. > > Currently driver is not able to handle cores with core ID greater than 32. > Such attempt ends up with the following error

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: > A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than > required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. > > Currently driver is not able to handle cores with core ID greater than 32. > Such attempt ends up with the following error

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/13/2015 02:05 PM, Phil Pokorny wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. Why

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: > > A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than > > required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. > Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ?

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Tuesday, October 12, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum > for Xeon Phi ? It would be fine today, but it will be not enough in 2016 and we would like to give GNU/Linux distributions some time to propagate this patch.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/13/2015 03:02 PM, Odzioba, Lukasz wrote: On Tuesday, October 12, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum for Xeon Phi ? It would be fine today, but it will be not enough in 2016 and we would like to give GNU/Linux

RE: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Pardon my ignorance ... those are Xeon Phi processors, and support up to > 244 threads (for Knights Corner). Programming datasheet isn't easily > available, > so I have to guess a bit. Following the processor numbering scheme of

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

On 10/12/2015 04:53 AM, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. Currently driver is not able to handle cores with core ID greater than 32. Such attempt ends up with the following error in dmesg: coretemp

[PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. Currently driver is not able to handle cores with core ID greater than 32. Such attempt ends up with the following error in dmesg: coretemp coretemp.0: Adding Core XXX failed Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 1/1] Bumps limit of maximum core ID from 32 to 128.

A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. Currently driver is not able to handle cores with core ID greater than 32. Such attempt ends up with the following error in dmesg: coretemp coretemp.0: Adding Core XXX failed Signed-off-by: