On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:07:36PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:24:48 Palmer Cox wrote:
> > The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
> > cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
> > are not guaranteed to be
On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:24:48 Palmer Cox wrote:
> The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
> cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
> are not guaranteed to be contiguous. So, simply setting pkgs to the value
> of the highest
On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:24:48 Palmer Cox wrote:
The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
are not guaranteed to be contiguous. So, simply setting pkgs to the value
of the highest
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:07:36PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:24:48 Palmer Cox wrote:
The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
are not guaranteed to be
The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
are not guaranteed to be contiguous. So, simply setting pkgs to the value
of the highest physical_package_id doesn't actually provide a count of
the number of
The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
are not guaranteed to be contiguous. So, simply setting pkgs to the value
of the highest physical_package_id doesn't actually provide a count of
the number of
6 matches
Mail list logo
