From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
"ananth@in.ibm.com" <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:46:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100112094624.GA24987@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001111906300.17145@localhost.localdomain>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> > some systems that have disable cpus entries because same
> > BIOS will support 2 sockets and 4 sockets and more at
> > same time, BIOS just leave some disable entries, but
> > those system do not support cpu hotplug. we don't need
> > treat disabled_cpus as hotplug cpus.
> >
> > so we can make nr_cpu_ids smaller and save more space
> > (pcpu data allocations), and could make some systems run
> > with logical flat instead of physical flat apic mode
>
> .. but this one I detest.
>
> We can't play games that depend on us always filling in some DMI table
> correctly. Things need to "just work".
>
> So while 1/4 looks fine, 2/4 looks fundamentally unacceptable.
>
> Is the flat APIC mode really so important?
it's not important at all. When it's proven safe it's fine but it's clearly
not unconditionally safe ...
> I would suggest a few alternatives:
>
> Truly static:
>
> - only use that flat apic mode when you _know_ that you absolutely will
> never have more than 8 cpu's. Ie when CONFIG_NR_CPUS <= 8 (or, with
> 1/3, when nr_cpu_ids <= 8) and/or when <= 8 CPU's were detected, and
> CPU hotplug is disabled entirely.
>
> Slightly more intelligent:
>
> - Look at the ACPI socket count, and hey, if it says it might have more
> sockets - whether they are really hotplug or not, don't use flat mode,
> because we simply don't know. But do _not_ do some kind of DMI table to
> say one way or the other.
>
> And if it's _really_ important:
>
> - if flat mode is so important that you want to enable it whenever
> possible, what about enabling/disabling it dynamically at CPU hotplug
> time? That does sound _very_ painful, but it's still better than having
> to maintain some list of all systems that can ever hot-plug.
>
> Hmm?
I'd go for #1. If the (modest) micro-performance advantages of flat delivery
matter to a hardware vendor the system/BIOS can be built in a way to trigger
the optimization. But even single socket systems are quickly running out of
the space of 8 APIC ids so the relevance is dwindling ...
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-12 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-12 2:48 [RFC PATCH 1/4] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86: using logical flat for amd cpu too Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:47 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 8:27 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2010-01-12 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-13 4:53 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86: according to nr_cpu_ids to decide if need to leave logical flat Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 15:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 17:54 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-01-12 18:13 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 18:24 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-01-12 19:19 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 9:15 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2010-01-12 16:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-01-12 16:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 17:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-01-12 3:06 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early Linus Torvalds
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=20100112094624.GA24987@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yinghai@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