Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: morten.rasmussen@arm.com (Morten Rasmussen)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: topology: Avoid checking numa mask for scheduler MC selection
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 16:07:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180606150745.GC8461@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be5f7066-0b44-ff11-37e9-87512df2294f@arm.com>

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:53:39AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 06/06/2018 09:44 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:08:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> >>The numa mask subset check has problems if !CONFIG_NUMA, over hotplug
> >>operations or during early boot. Lets disable the NUMA siblings checks
> >>for the time being, as NUMA in socket machines have LLC's that will
> >>assure that the scheduler topology isn't "borken".
> >
> >Could we add an explanation why the numa node mask check is needed in
> >the first place. >
> >IIUC, we have the check in case the LLC is shared across numa nodes as
> >this would cause core_siblings > cpumask_of_node() which breaks the
> >scheduler topology.
> 
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea, my comments probably assume that the
> reader has been part of these conversations.
> 
> >
> >While sharing LLC across numa nodes seems quite unusual, I think it is
> >allowed by ACPI. Those systems might already be broken before, so might
> >not change anything. It is just worth noting why the check should be
> >added back later.
> 
> Right, there isn't anything in ACPI that dictates a system topology
> restriction like this. Given that other architectures have built machines
> with large directory caches that span numa nodes the check was a safety
> measure.

Agreed, it seems that another architecture has recently merged support
for that: 1340ccfa9a9a

      reply	other threads:[~2018-06-06 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-05 19:08 [PATCH] arm64: topology: Avoid checking numa mask for scheduler MC selection Jeremy Linton
2018-06-06 10:05 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-06 14:36   ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-06 14:44 ` Morten Rasmussen
2018-06-06 14:53   ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-06 15:07     ` Morten Rasmussen [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=20180606150745.GC8461@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox