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
next prev parent 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