From: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] sched: add new 'book' scheduling domain
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:22:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100819122210.GF4659@loge.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100812172544.655648128@de.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 01:25:44PM -0400, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> This patch set adds (yet) another scheduling domain to the scheduler.
All that stuff reminds me of quite similar patches to introduce a
multi-node scheduling domain for Magny-Cours CPUs.
I am afraid that this stuff won't make it upstream and we both have to
review Peter's suggestions from last year to come up with a more
genarelized/flexible way to handle different scheduling domains.
> The reason for this is that the recent (s390) z196 architecture has
> four cache levels and uniform memory access (sort of -- see below).
> The cpu/cache/memory hierarchy is as follows:
> Each cpu has its private L1 (64KB I-cache + 128KB D-cache) and L2 (1.5MB)
> cache.
> A core consists of four cpus with a 24MB shared L3 cache.
> A book consists of six cores with a 192MB shared L4 cache.
> The z196 architecture has no SMT.
[...]
> A boot of a logical partition with 20 cpus, shared on two books, gives these
> initializion output to the console:
Below output shows that there is some odd distribution of your CPUs in
the different domain levels. Is this caused by the fact that not all
CPUs of a core and book were assigned to your logical partition?
For better understanding is the following CPUs-to-core/book mapping correct for
your example?
Book | Core | CPU
------+--------+---------
0 | 0 | 0,1,2,3
0 | 1 | 4,5
1 | 0 | 6,9
1 | 1 | 10,11
1 | 2 | 12,13
1 | 3 | 14,15,16
1 | 4 | 17,18,19
> Brought up 20 CPUs
> CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
> domain 0: span 0-5 level BOOK
> groups: 0 1-3 (cpu_power = 3072) 4-5 (cpu_power = 2048)
Why isn't there a range 0-3 instead of "0 1-3"?
And why isn't cpu_power=4096?
Ah, I think that for CPU 0 just the power information is
missing, So we have 3 groups:
0 (cpu_power=1024) 1-3 (cpu_power=3071) 4-5 (cpu_power=2048)
And the MC level is folded because it doesn't add anything in this
case.
So the mapping is in fact
Book | Core | CPU
------+--------+---------
0 | 0 | 0
0 | 1 | 1,2,3
0 | 2 | 4,5
1 | 0 | 6,9
1 | 1 | 10,11
1 | 2 | 12,13
1 | 3 | 14,15,16
1 | 4 | 17,18,19
> domain 1: span 0-19 level CPU
> groups: 0-5 (cpu_power = 6144) 6-19 (cpu_power = 14336)
> CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
> domain 0: span 1-3 level MC
> groups: 1 2 3
> domain 1: span 0-5 level BOOK
> groups: 1-3 (cpu_power = 3072) 4-5 (cpu_power = 2048) 0
> domain 2: span 0-19 level CPU
> groups: 0-5 (cpu_power = 6144) 6-19 (cpu_power = 14336)
It's odd that for CPU 1 the BOOK domain groups differ from those shown
for CPU0.
> CPU2 attaching sched-domain:
> domain 0: span 1-3 level MC
> groups: 2 3 1
> domain 1: span 0-5 level BOOK
> groups: 1-3 (cpu_power = 3072) 4-5 (cpu_power = 2048) 0
Again for CPU 0 the cpu_power is missing. I think that is confusing.
For better readability that sould also be displayed (if a group
consists of only 1 CPU).
> domain 2: span 0-19 level CPU
> groups: 0-5 (cpu_power = 6144) 6-19 (cpu_power = 14336)
[snip the rest]
Andreas
--
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
System | Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
Research | Geschäftsführer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Center | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
(OSRC) | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-19 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-12 17:25 [PATCH/RFC 0/5] sched: add new 'book' scheduling domain Heiko Carstens
2010-08-12 17:25 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/5] [PATCH] sched: merge cpu_to_core_group functions Heiko Carstens
2010-08-13 21:11 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-08-31 8:26 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-08-12 17:25 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/5] [PATCH] sched: pass sched_domain_level to sched_power_savings_store Heiko Carstens
2010-08-13 21:13 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-08-19 11:36 ` Andreas Herrmann
2010-08-16 8:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-19 11:41 ` Andreas Herrmann
2010-08-19 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-19 12:32 ` Andreas Herrmann
2010-08-12 17:25 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/5] [PATCH] sched: add book scheduling domain Heiko Carstens
2010-08-13 21:22 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-08-16 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-12 17:25 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/5] [PATCH] topology/sysfs: provide book id and siblings attributes Heiko Carstens
2010-08-12 17:25 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/5] [PATCH] topology: add z196 cpu topology support Heiko Carstens
2010-08-19 12:22 ` Andreas Herrmann [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100819122210.GF4659@loge.amd.com \
--to=andreas.herrmann3@amd.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.