From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@broadcom.com>,
James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>,
Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com>,
Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/29] x86/cpu: Encapsulate topology information in cpuinfo_x86
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:46:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877cqotovk.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230724172843.757723854@linutronix.de>
On Mon, Jul 24 2023 at 19:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> +struct cpuinfo_topology {
> + u16 apicid;
> + u16 initial_apicid;
There was an offlist question whether these should be u32 because with
X2APIC the APIC ID is 32bit wide.
The answer is yes, no, maybe. Why?
In practice there are limitations, both on the hardware side and on the
kernel side.
The kernel limits the max. APIC ID to 32768 and the maximum number of
CPUs to 8192 right now. Increasing the maximum APIC ID is possible, but
that needs some deep thoughts as we have one array which is
MAX_LOCAL_APIC sized and a bitmap of that size too. Even the bitmap
would require (1 << 32)/8 = 5.36871e+08 B = 512MB of memory. With a limit
of 32768 it's a reasonable 4KB. :)
On the hardware side the topology information is in the APIC ID:
[PKGID][DIEID]...[COREID][THREADID]
where everything below the PKGID is relative to the package. Right now
the vendors have that space packed, i.e. the number of bits below PKGID
is sized that its the next power of 2 which allows to fit the actual
number of logical processors.
There have been systems where the PKGID shift was larger than that which
caused us to do the logical package mapping because we ended up with
package ID gaps. That was caused by incorrect information in leaf
0xB/0x1F, i.e. the package shift enumerated was smaller than the actual
one.
So with an upper limit of 8192 CPUs the limitation to 32K APIC IDs
should be really sufficient. The largest package shift I've seen so far
is 8, i.e. 256 logical processors per package. That means 32 packages
max. That should be sufficient for a while, right? The HPE/UV people
might have a word to say here though.
So no, u16 is fine, but yes, we can make it u32 just for simplicity
sake, which still does not allow you to have an APIC ID >= 32k, but
makes it easy enough to expand that to e.g. 64K or 128K if the need ever
arises. Let me rework that accordingly.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-25 7:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-24 17:43 [patch 00/29] x86/cpu: Rework the topology evaluation Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:43 ` [patch 01/29] x86/cpu: Encapsulate topology information in cpuinfo_x86 Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-25 7:46 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2023-07-24 17:43 ` [patch 02/29] x86/cpu: Move phys_proc_id into topology info Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:43 ` [patch 03/29] x86/cpu: Move cpu_die_id " Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:43 ` [patch 04/29] scsi: lpfc: Use topology_core_id() Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:43 ` [patch 05/29] hwmon: (fam15h_power) " Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:53 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-07-24 17:43 ` [patch 06/29] x86/cpu: Move cpu_core_id into topology info Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 07/29] x86/cpu: Move cu_id " Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 08/29] x86/cpu: Remove pointless evaluation of x86_coreid_bits Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 09/29] x86/cpu: Move logical package and die IDs into topology info Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 10/29] x86/cpu: Move cpu_l[l2]c_id " Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 11/29] x86/cpu: Provide debug interface Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 12/29] x86/cpu: Provide cpuid_read() et al Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 13/29] x86/cpu: Provide cpu_init/parse_topology() Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 14/29] x86/cpu: Add legacy topology parser Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 15/29] x86/cpu: Use common topology code for Centaur and Zhaoxin Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 16/29] x86/cpu: Move __max_die_per_package to common.c Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 17/29] x86/cpu: Provide a sane leaf 0xb/0x1f parser Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 20:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-07-24 21:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-07-25 6:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 18/29] x86/cpu: Use common topology code for Intel Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 19/29] x86/cpu/amd: Provide a separate acessor for Node ID Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 20/29] x86/cpu: Provide an AMD/HYGON specific topology parser Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 21/29] x86/smpboot: Teach it about topo.amd_node_id Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 22/29] x86/cpu: Use common topology code for AMD Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 23/29] x86/cpu: Use common topology code for HYGON Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 24/29] x86/mm/numa: Use core domain size on AMD Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 25/29] x86/cpu: Make topology_amd_node_id() use the actual node info Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 26/29] x86/cpu: Remove topology.c Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 27/29] x86/cpu: Remove x86_coreid_bits Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 28/29] x86/apic: Remove unused phys_pkg_id() callback Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 17:44 ` [patch 29/29] x86/apic/uv: Remove the private leaf 0xb parser Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-24 21:05 ` [patch 00/29] x86/cpu: Rework the topology evaluation Peter Zijlstra
2023-07-25 20:17 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2023-07-26 22:15 ` Sohil Mehta
2023-07-26 22:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-07-26 23:27 ` Sohil Mehta
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=877cqotovk.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dick.kennedy@broadcom.com \
--cc=dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com \
--cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=mike.travis@hpe.com \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=russ.anderson@hpe.com \
--cc=steve.wahl@hpe.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).