linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of socket

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:16:57 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leo.duran@....com,
        yazen.ghannam@....com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of socket

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:55:52PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> The reason we are trying to present "package == NUMA node (die)" here is
> because the topology.txt defines package to contain a number of cores plus
> shared resources (e.g. DRAM controller, shared caches, etc). Since the
> cpuinfo_x86.phys_proc_id is also defined as the physical ID of the package,

Ok, it seems we will continue talking past each other here. So let's
look at the issues separately:

 * irqbalance fails to allocating IRQs to individual CPU within the die.

Why does it fail? What is the root cause for this?

 * The scheduler fails to load-balance across 8 threads within a die
   (e.g. running 8-thread application w/ taskset -c 0-7 ) with
   the DIE schedule domain omitted due to x86_has_numa_in_package.

Why do you need to load-balance within the die? Why not load-balance
within the 0-15 threads?

What are the disadvantages of the situation now?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.