From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
tony.luck@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] x86/CPU/AMD: Save NodeId on AMD-based systems
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:51:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200916195152.GA3042858@yaz-nikka.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200915083259.GC14436@zn.tnic>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:35:15AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
...
> > Yeah, I think example 4b works here. The mismatch though is with
> > phys_proc_id and package on AMD systems. You can see above that
> > phys_proc_id gives a socket number, and the AMD NodeId gives a package
> > number.
>
> Ok, now looka here:
>
> " - cpuinfo_x86.logical_proc_id:
>
> The logical ID of the package. As we do not trust BIOSes to enumerate the
> packages in a consistent way, we introduced the concept of logical package
> ID so we can sanely calculate the number of maximum possible packages in
> the system and have the packages enumerated linearly."
>
> Doesn't that sound like exactly what you need?
>
> Because that DF ID *is* practically the package ID as there's 1:1
> mapping between DF and a package, as you say above.
>
> Right?
>
> Now, it says
>
> [ 7.670791] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2
>
> on my Rome box but what you want sounds very much like the logical
> package ID and if we define that on AMD to be that and document it this
> way, I guess that should work too, provided there are no caveats like
> sched is using this info for proper task placement and so on. That would
> need code audit, of course...
>
The only use of logical_proc_id seems to be in hswep_uncore_cpu_init().
So I think maybe we can use this.
However, I think there are two issues.
1) The logical_proc_id seems like it should refer to the same type of
structure as phys_proc_id. In our case, this won't be true as
phys_proc_id would refer to the "socket" on AMD and logical_proc_id
would refer to the package/AMD NodeId.
2) The AMD NodeId is read during c_init()/init_amd(), so logical_proc_id
can be set here. But then logical_proc_id will get overwritten later in
topology_update_package_map(). I don't know if it'd be good to modify
the generic flow to support this vendor-specific behavior.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Yazen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-16 19:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-03 20:01 [PATCH v2 0/8] AMD MCA Address Translation Updates Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] x86/CPU/AMD: Save NodeId on AMD-based systems Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-09 18:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-09 20:17 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-10 10:14 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-14 19:20 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-15 8:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-16 19:51 ` Yazen Ghannam [this message]
2020-09-17 10:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-17 16:20 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-17 16:40 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-17 19:44 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-17 20:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] x86/CPU/AMD: Remove amd_get_nb_id() Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] EDAC/mce_amd: Use struct cpuinfo_x86.node_id for NodeId Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] x86/MCE/AMD: Use defines for register addresses in translation code Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] x86/MCE/AMD: Use macros to get bitfields " Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-21 13:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] x86/MCE/AMD: Drop tmp variable " Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-23 8:05 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-23 16:05 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] x86/MCE/AMD: Group register reads " Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-03 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] x86/MCE/AMD Support new memory interleaving modes during address translation Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-23 8:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-23 16:25 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-25 7:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-25 19:51 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-28 9:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-28 15:53 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-28 18:14 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-29 13:21 ` Yazen Ghannam
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=20200916195152.GA3042858@yaz-nikka.amd.com \
--to=yazen.ghannam@amd.com \
--cc=Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--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