Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/rt: Split cpupri_vec->cpumask to per NUMA node to reduce contention

[Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, 2026-04-03 at 13:46 +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> On 4/2/2026 7:06 PM, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> > 
> > On 4/2/2026 4:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 10:11:11AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It is still not super clear to me how the logic deals with more than
> > > > 128CPUs in a DIE domain because that'll need more than the u64 but
> > > > sbm_find_next_bit() simply does:
> > > > 
> > > >      tmp = leaf->bitmap & mask; /* All are u64 */
> > > > 
> > > > expecting just the u64 bitmap to represent all the CPUs in the leaf.
> > > > 
> > > > If we have, say 256 CPUs per DIE, we get shift(7) and arch_sbm_mask
> > > > as 7f (127) which allows a leaf to more than 64 CPUs but we are
> > > > using the "u64 bitmap" directly and not:
> > > > 
> > > >      find_next_bit(bitmap, arch_sbm_mask)
> > > > 
> > > > Am I missing something here?
> > > 
> > > Nope. That logic just isn't there, that was left as an exercise to the
> > > reader :-)
> > 
> > Ack! Let me go fiddle with that.
> > 
> 
> Nice catch. I hadn't noticed this since we have fewer than
> 64 CPUs per die. Please feel free to send patches to me when
> they're available.
> 
> And regarding your other question about the calculation of arch_sbm_shift,
> I'm trying to understand why there is a subtraction of 1, should it be:
> -       arch_sbm_shift = x86_topo_system.dom_shifts[TOPO_DIE_DOMAIN] - 1;
> +       arch_sbm_shift = x86_topo_system.dom_shifts[TOPO_DIE_DOMAIN - 1];

Perhaps something like

	arch_sbm_shift = min(sizeof(unsigned long),
			     topology_get_domain_shift(TOPO_TILE_DOMAIN));

to take care of both AMD system and the 64 bit leaf bitmask limit?

Tim

> ?
> Are we trying to filer the raw global unique die id? - similar to 
> topo_apicid()
> which mask the lower x86_topo_system.dom_shifts[dom - 1]).
> 
> With above change I can get a correct value of leaves (4) rather than (2) in
> the original version.
> 
> thanks,
> Chenyu
> 
>