From: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>
To: "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
"zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com" <zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 0/1] x86: cpu topology fix and question on x86_max_cores
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:10:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3bc616e8a513d4bfef2fb2d824f7ca8e8815bc77.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65bb51627b7384190f6aa1c549548a2497a926c3.camel@intel.com>
Hi, all,
sorry for the late followup.
On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 16:26 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > I thought of improving this by parsing all the valid APIC-IDs in
> > > MADT
> > > during BSP bootup, and get such information by decoding the APIC-
> > > IDs
> > > using the APIC-ID layout information retrieved from BSP. But this
> > > is
> > > likely to be a fertile new source of bugs as Dave concerned.
> >
> > The APIC-IDs are only usefull if there is an architected scheme how
> > they
> > are assigned. Is there such a thing?
>
> I don't know.
> Do you think it helps if the APIC-ID layout are defined to be
> identical
> across all CPUs?
> In this case, BSP knows the APIC-ID layout of itself and this can
> apply
> to the other APIC-IDs.
Yeah, I have confirmed with Len that the APIC-ID layouts are identical
across all CPUs on each single system.
>
> > The SDM is not helpful at all, but according to the ACPI spec there
> > exists:
> >
> > Processor Properties Topology Table (PPTT)
> >
> > That table actually provides pretty much what we are looking for,
> > but
> > that table is optional and there is actually code for that in the
> > kernel, which is ARM64 specific.
> >
> > So while this would be useful it's not usable on x86 because that
> > would
> > make too much sense, right?
>
> Thanks for pointing to this.
>
> I got a brief view of PPTT. So far, my understanding is that PPTT
> provides
> 1. the cpu Hierarchy, but package level only. There may be multiple
> levels but it does not tell us if it is a Die, Module or Core.
> 2. the cache Hierarchy
>
> I need to find one real PPTT implementation to see how it works.
I got one PPTT dump and also checked the kernel pptt parsing code.
Based on current PPTT definition, it is true that it can only tell
1. a thread (a Processor Hierarchy Node Structure with "Processor is a
Thread" flag set)
2. a CPU(core) (a Processor Hierarchy Node Structure with "Processor is
a Thread" flag cleared)
3. a package (a Processor Hierarchy Node Structure with "Physical
package" flag set)
We can get useful information like total packages, number of cores in a
package, number of smt siblings etc. But, say, if there is another
level between Core and package, it cannot tell if it is a
Die/Tile/Module. So far, this does not show a strong advantage compared
with the MADT solution, which doesn't depend on new firmware support.
thanks,
rui
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-07 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-20 3:28 [RFC PATCH V2 0/1] x86: cpu topology fix and question on x86_max_cores Zhang Rui
2023-02-20 3:28 ` [PATCH V2 1/1] x86/topology: fix erroneous smp_num_siblings on Intel Hybrid platform Zhang Rui
2023-02-20 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-21 8:34 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-03-13 2:05 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 10:36 ` [RFC PATCH V2 0/1] x86: cpu topology fix and question on x86_max_cores Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-20 14:40 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-20 14:33 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-20 22:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-02-21 8:01 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-02-20 22:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-02-21 8:26 ` Zhang, Rui
2023-03-07 16:10 ` Zhang, Rui [this message]
2023-03-08 2:46 ` Brown, Len
2023-02-21 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-21 10:09 ` 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=3bc616e8a513d4bfef2fb2d824f7ca8e8815bc77.camel@intel.com \
--to=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.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