public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:40:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fuh3xf2i.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170420150615.ns3343rokvmc3kjt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (Peter Zijlstra's message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:06:15 +0200")

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:24:53PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> In this patch I suggest we set __max_logical_packages based on the
>> max_physical_pkg_id and total_cpus,
>
> So my 4 socket 144 CPU system will then get max_physical_pkg_id=144,
> instead of 4.
>
> This wastes quite a bit of memory for the per-node arrays. Luckily most
> are just pointer arrays, but still, wasting 140*8 bytes for each of
> them.
>
>> this should be safe and cover all
>> possible cases. Alternatively, we may think about eliminating the concept
>> of __max_logical_packages completely and relying on max_physical_pkg_id/
>> total_cpus where we currently use topology_max_packages().
>> 
>> The issue could've been solved in Xen too I guess. CPUID returning
>> x86_max_cores can be tweaked to be the lowerest(?) possible number of
>> all logical packages of the guest.
>
> This is getting ludicrous. Xen is plain broken, and instead of fixing
> it, you propose to somehow deal with its obviously crack induced
> behaviour :-(

Totally agree and I don't like the solution I propose (and that's why
this is RFC)... The problem is that there are such Xen setups in the
wild and with the recent changes some guests will BUG() :-(

Alternatively, we can just remove the BUG() and do something with CPUs
which have their pkg >= __max_logical_packages, e.g. assign them to the
last package. Far from ideal but will help to avoid the regression.

-- 
  Vitaly

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-20 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-20 13:24 [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Vitaly Kuznetsov
2017-04-20 15:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 15:40   ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2017-04-20 16:01     ` [Xen-devel] " Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-20 16:21       ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2017-04-20 16:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 17:09       ` [Xen-devel] " Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-20 17:04   ` Andrew Cooper

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=87fuh3xf2i.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
    --to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=prarit@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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