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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox