From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 120495 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2018 10:49:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 120460 invoked by uid 89); 11 Apr 2018 10:49:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-106.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=nevertheless X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (HELO mout.kundenserver.de) (212.227.17.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:49:25 +0000 Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([217.91.18.234]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue102 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LbrjI-1eeY3q2jjQ-00jHWN for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:49:22 +0200 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id E07A3A81ECE; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:49:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:49:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: /proc/cpuinfo vs. processor groups Message-ID: <20180411104921.GN29703@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <878t9vt3vs.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20180411070241.GJ29703@calimero.vinschen.de> <20180411092841.GL29703@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180411092841.GL29703@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:96HwOtnr12o=:uCeKHYQRsQRMjS3UBXeq0F cEllQEfOIHvAeSzkEs4PnCf79T8jp1BPkYs6tZ3sAwwn+dpuXMmSEBeFhy1ZGfCg2QHl+SFXC B6hVBiPDMrfJc0TRyauJY+4syjuAp870C8OQJo7WDMLnSg2LfG6DDI/RxZLk1tkMQPdDrCc8R oZZ13Wa4ae/4f1bgmwQ7pnLdOFtvTJhFoIf3PjTUjuPQ0bylMh7Lax0JPlIllKeSM0ZAEOsPl aJsPI/rIN5EgKz6ZVb+rysJfq+XxHYuUW/NhR/3pK2wTKnrK2BUJbOd+mIZpepxnn+o8G6ANb QOPVbBDfyPNdf1Kg205kU8UAm3ePkxkmXQVKxmBfeZ9QRFEZL6SPAbazpdp0bJpn2oMpeHijb D+tXYgOHuRN6IbYseKS0RN9DSHefTCNZRnGC9FozhxPFMCB507gBkgiNVeVIpPxUlMwbFQqe7 PTtfs09QdDYvPGqi/L/C76lRbCIl4UhYMtRapc5v0tRQOIewjiVhVDTKAMQjvokQYVKpKuf9i J3QCoxmjh9xSjdvQCEQAQOC8G8PraUfkvJunLKEMSny47SBnvKPMuU3AlwUn5DuFPM5ysR0Rr K5RdO2nHyZDBwaIuTKcIGcEBp+IHIeIPofjUSibovj0sfLk1A276cKsUCDL37t+ZKfLU7M67f ZLC6BxamoYyk2WvMpKFaAvA7PmRkSDFgJBILe0ruTnuAQ01haEyUeZeTyN5cH2schfMP114Kr ipJ+FXdmINEJshp7lLEnuUE9b3X1I6uGIAYaRw== X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 --I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1914 On Apr 11 11:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 11 09:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Apr 10 18:36, Achim Gratz wrote: > > > As briefly discussed on IRC I've got a new Server 2016 blade with 2 > > > sockets =C3=97 8 cores =C3=97 2 HT =3D32 logical processors and Cygwi= n spews errors > > > for processor ID 16 and up (also top doesn't quite work, which likely > > > has the same reason, although the code path may be unrelated to the > > > /proc/cpuinfo bug described here). > > >=20 > > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > > > 64bit (166)~ > cat /proc/cpuinfo > > > 0 [main] cat 10068 format_proc_cpuinfo: SetThreadGroupAffinity(= 10000,0 (10/16)) failed Win32 error 87 > > > [...] >=20 > I'm a bit puzzled about the connection between MaximumProcessorCount > and ActiveProcessorCount here. Why isn't MaximumProcessorCount 16 > as well? Setting it to 64 doesn't make any sense for a system with > 32 logical CPUs in total. >=20 > I'm not sure just simply using ActiveProcessorCount rather than > MaximumProcessorCount is the right thing to do... Nevertheless I pushed a patch doing just that, plus... >=20 > > > As an aside, the cache size is reported as 256kiB (not just for this > > > processor, but also for a Celeron 1037U on another machine), which se= ems > > > to be the L2 cache for a single hardware core on these architectures. > > > Linux now reports L3 cache sizes (and possibly L4 if present) for the= se > > > (20MiB and 2MiB per socket respectively). >=20 > L3 is easy. Checking the Linux kernel source I don't see that it > reports L4. ...L3 reporting for Intel CPUs. I'm just building a new developer snapshot I'll upload to https://cygwin.com/snapshots/ shortly. Please give it a try. Corinna --=20 Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat --I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-length: 833 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEoVYPmneWZnwT6kwF9TYGna5ET6AFAlrN6DEACgkQ9TYGna5E T6CcsA//bsfSFZibSvSyvD2HNzq1c+eVe67jgYdFwxL2uwLZk/T5JT+vvKPw++i1 5z32pQjEm9dVjqXUD6AkN+ZypHaQLmazXU4/b4Lrp7O32DmKYlg7mb4BpDVmjilJ zAFe1NjPDbbjp1OfTrgiYdwUVqlmCLPv+gU8MQhV8yQkorUm6wq1r4TAeXr+tPVe knfnCuvXr+DwpdINOiAB37SvkIv/ymuIdUKRDakOBA7+fA/7QNRLCQraWFg+ua+A Hub4iIRp8UkVKDOf6rqYw/cpxkiAWaiixa/2ieiOJkOLudysUetpQS4CfkzNMMQS AqHovRH6v6euCXg0tmtXry1CBffe4z1Q/adseQDE1fdoZNu6/XZk0BGmLbiAKreB cGxr/KH+pP1y4Vatjx2aFDm1S9q0XR0u0KNEU7jxTIxhfjBjQRoznACT9etJPgkT VPGdnnrjIQjzRgKer9SICyA54thbz4s7FnzX18ANuSAu5T/Zkv57MgE/tQjIBIhf ULXbClydQQHvk32nKV1yM2+jTOPNt8THSJx5kD7CPbDyDRsac3uqd8xfSpqyeDBh 0DguXzI88J1vkk+kSbBC9Jdn/bsf3tJ67ChTulJFHpioMrwcxX71nv7lcIgJKshA 9strDIM5dUUuaIdJnm+yLOLYhU791FmwNy+s21JmvZUyqm6/JAc= =D673 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --I/5syFLg1Ed7r+1G--