On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 02:04:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roger Pau Monne writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST 1/2] exanime: test for SMT and add a
> host flag"):
> > Check if hosts have SMT based on the number of threads per core. A
> > value of threads per core different than 0 implies SMT support.
> ...
> > +logm("$ho->{Ident} threads per core: $threads");
> > +hostflag_putative_record($ho, "smt", !!$threads);
>
> This code LGTM but I wonder if it would be a good idea to start
> namespacing these kind of hardware feature flags. cpu-*, hardware-*,
> feature-* maybe ? Would you care to make a suggestion ?
cpu-smt seems fine if we plan to do similar namespacing with other
hardware features, I could see cpu-{smt,vmx,svm} and
devices-{iommu,sriov,ats} or some such for example.
If OTOH we don't want to be that fine grained I think
hw-{smt,iommu,vmx,...} would also be fine.
Not sure whether this has helped much. I guess my vote would be for
cpu-smt namespace.
Thanks, Roger.
