From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@numascale.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@numascale.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Steffen Persvold <sp@numascale.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] x86: Fix sibling map with NumaChip
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:48:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1425444511-22450-1-git-send-email-daniel@numascale.com> (raw)
On NumaChip systems, the physical processor ID assignment wasn't accounting
for the number of nodes in AMD multi-module processors, giving an incorrect
sibling map:
$ cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu29/topology
$ grep . *
core_id:5
core_siblings:00000000,ff000000
core_siblings_list:24-31
physical_package_id:3
thread_siblings:00000000,30000000
thread_siblings_list:28-29
After fixing:
core_id:5
core_siblings:00000000,ffff0000
core_siblings_list:16-31
physical_package_id:1
thread_siblings:00000000,30000000
thread_siblings_list:28-29
v2: Fix to check for MSR availability before use, as per Boris's feedback
v3: Test against boot cpu features to correct behaviour on larger systems
with global IO
Candidate for stable.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@numascale.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
index c2fd21f..c1f4f36 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
@@ -37,10 +37,12 @@ static const struct apic apic_numachip;
static unsigned int get_apic_id(unsigned long x)
{
unsigned long value;
- unsigned int id;
+ unsigned int id = (x >> 24) & 0xff;
- rdmsrl(MSR_FAM10H_NODE_ID, value);
- id = ((x >> 24) & 0xffU) | ((value << 2) & 0xff00U);
+ if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NODEID_MSR)) {
+ rdmsrl(MSR_FAM10H_NODE_ID, value);
+ id |= (value << 2) & 0xff00;
+ }
return id;
}
@@ -155,10 +157,18 @@ static int __init numachip_probe(void)
static void fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node)
{
- if (c->phys_proc_id != node) {
- c->phys_proc_id = node;
- per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, smp_processor_id()) = node;
+ u64 val;
+ u32 nodes = 1;
+
+ this_cpu_write(cpu_llc_id, node);
+
+ /* Account for nodes per socket in multi-core-module processors */
+ if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_NODEID_MSR)) {
+ rdmsrl(MSR_FAM10H_NODE_ID, val);
+ nodes = ((val >> 3) & 7) + 1;
}
+
+ c->phys_proc_id = node / nodes;
}
static int __init numachip_system_init(void)
--
1.9.1
next reply other threads:[~2015-03-04 4:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-04 4:48 Daniel J Blueman [this message]
2015-03-04 4:52 ` [PATCH v3] x86: Fix sibling map with NumaChip Ingo Molnar
2015-03-04 9:22 ` Borislav Petkov
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=1425444511-22450-1-git-send-email-daniel@numascale.com \
--to=daniel@numascale.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sp@numascale.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.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