linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Fix cpu_coregroup_mask to return correct cpumask on multi-node processors

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:	Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:25:51 +0200
From:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Fix cpu_coregroup_mask to return correct
	cpumask on multi-node processors

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:31 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:36:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:46 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > > > The correct mask that describes core-siblings of an processor
> > > > is topology_core_cpumask. See topology adapation patches, especially
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124964999608179
> > > 
> > > 
> > > argh, violence, murder kill.. this is the worst possible hack and you're
> > > extending it :/
> > 
> > So this is the third code area
> > (besides sched_*_power_savings sysfs interface, and the __cpu_power fiddling)
> > that is crap, mess, a hack.
> > 
> > Didn't know that I'd enter such a minefield when touching this code. ;-(
> 
> Yeah, you're lucky that way ;-) Its been creaking for a while, and I've
> been making noises to the IBM people (who so far have been the main
> source of power saving patches) to clean this up, but now you trod onto
> all of it at once..
> 
> > What would be your perferred solution for the
> > core_cpumask/llc_shared_map stuff?  Another domain level to get rid of
> > this function?
> 
> Right, I'd like to see everything exposed as domain levels.
> 
> 
> numa-cluster
> numa
> socket
> in-socket-numa
> multi-core
> shared-cache
> core
> threads

Out of curiosity, when does cpu_core_mask differ from llc_shared_map
on Intel? Only in case of MCM (e.g. Core2 Quad)?

If yes, the hackery of cpu_coregroup_mask() could be replace by
the domain that I'd like to introduce for Magny-Cours:

  MC domain span would represent one die.
  The new domain would span all dies in an MCM.

Bad idea?



Andreas

-- 
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
  System  | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
 Research | Geschäftsführer: Andrew Bowd, Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
  Center  | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
  (OSRC)  | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/