From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
brice.goglin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, sched: Allow NUMA nodes to share an LLC on Intel platforms
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:38:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YCQ2QiC7If2X8jnP@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b717d5cd-e40d-c86a-05de-a512a5e3b0af@intel.com>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 07:22:03AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/10/21 12:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA))
> >> + set_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_NUMA_SHARES_LLC);
> >> }
> > This seens wrong too, it shouldn't be allowed pre SKX. And ideally only
> > be allowed when SNC is enabled.
>
> Originally, this just added a few more models to the list of CPUs with
> SNC. I was hoping for something a bit more durable that we wouldn't
> have to go back and poke at every year or two.
It's not like we don't have to update a gazillion FMS tables for each
new instance anyway :-(
> > Please make this more specific than: all Intel CPUs. Ofcourse, since you
> > all knew this was an issue, you could've made it discoverable
> > _somewhere_ :-(
>
> You're totally right, of course. The hardware could enumerate SNC as a
> feature explicitly somewhere. But, that's a little silly because all of
> the information that it's enumerating about the CPU caches and NUMA
> nodes present and correct is *correct*. The secondary information would
> only be for the CPU to say, "yeah, I'm really sure about that other stuff".
>
> I think this sanity check has outlived its usefulness.
Maybe BIOS monkeys got better, but I'm not sure I trust it all.
So SNC is all on-package, do all those nodes have the same pkg id? That
is, I'm trying to find something to restrict topological madness.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 88cd0064d1f8..de1010dd0bba 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -458,6 +458,26 @@ static bool match_smt(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
return false;
}
+static bool match_die(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
+{
+ if ((c->phys_proc_id == o->phys_proc_id) &&
+ (c->cpu_die_id == o->cpu_die_id))
+ return true;
+ return false;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Unlike the other levels, we do not enforce keeping a
+ * multicore group inside a NUMA node. If this happens, we will
+ * discard the MC level of the topology later.
+ */
+static bool match_pkg(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
+{
+ if (c->phys_proc_id == o->phys_proc_id)
+ return true;
+ return false;
+}
+
/*
* Define snc_cpu[] for SNC (Sub-NUMA Cluster) CPUs.
*
@@ -495,33 +515,12 @@ static bool match_llc(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
* means 'c' does not share the LLC of 'o'. This will be
* reflected to userspace.
*/
- if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && x86_match_cpu(snc_cpu))
+ if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && x86_match_cpu(snc_cpu) && match_pkg(c, o))
return false;
return topology_sane(c, o, "llc");
}
-/*
- * Unlike the other levels, we do not enforce keeping a
- * multicore group inside a NUMA node. If this happens, we will
- * discard the MC level of the topology later.
- */
-static bool match_pkg(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
-{
- if (c->phys_proc_id == o->phys_proc_id)
- return true;
- return false;
-}
-
-static bool match_die(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
-{
- if ((c->phys_proc_id == o->phys_proc_id) &&
- (c->cpu_die_id == o->cpu_die_id))
- return true;
- return false;
-}
-
-
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC)
static inline int x86_sched_itmt_flags(void)
{
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-10 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-09 22:39 [PATCH] x86, sched: Allow NUMA nodes to share an LLC on Intel platforms Alison Schofield
2021-02-09 23:09 ` Luck, Tony
2021-02-10 8:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-10 17:41 ` Dave Hansen
2021-02-10 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-10 15:22 ` Dave Hansen
2021-02-10 19:38 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-02-10 22:11 ` Alison Schofield
2021-02-16 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-16 19:53 ` Alison Schofield
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=YCQ2QiC7If2X8jnP@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brice.goglin@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--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