linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: Enable ASYM_SMT on interleaved big-core systems

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 10:35:08 +0530
From:   Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc:     "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Akshay Adiga <akshay.adiga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: Enable ASYM_SMT on interleaved big-core
 systems

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:22:07PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 16:47 +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Each of the SMT4 cores forming a fused-core are more or less
> > independent units. Thus when multiple tasks are scheduled to run on
> > the fused core, we get the best performance when the tasks are spread
> > across the pair of SMT4 cores.
> > 
> > Since the threads in the pair of SMT4 cores of an interleaved big-core
> > are numbered {0,2,4,6} and {1,3,5,7} respectively, enable ASYM_SMT on
> > such interleaved big-cores that will bias the load-balancing of tasks
> > on smaller numbered threads, which will automatically result in
> > spreading the tasks uniformly across the associated pair of SMT4
> > cores.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > index 9ca7148..0153f01 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > @@ -1082,7 +1082,7 @@ static int powerpc_smt_flags(void)
> >  {
> >  	int flags = SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES;
> >  
> > -	if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT)) {
> > +	if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT) || has_interleaved_big_core) {
> 
> Shouldn't we just set CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT and leave this code
unchanged?

Yes, that would have the same effect. I refrained from doing that
since I thought CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT has the "lower numbered threads
expedite thread-folding" connotation from the POWER7 generation.

If it is ok to overload CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT, we can do what you suggest
and have all the changes in setup-common.c

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.