linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus.

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:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:54:48 -0800
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"ananth@...ibm.com" <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as
 hotplug cpus.

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 07:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > And if it's _really_ important:
> > >
> > >  - if flat mode is so important that you want to enable it whenever
> > >   possible, what about enabling/disabling it dynamically at CPU hotplug
> > >   time? That does sound _very_ painful, but it's still better than having
> > >   to maintain some list of all systems that can ever hot-plug.
> > 
> > interesting, could be done.
> > init_apic_ldr is called even for physical flat on 64 bit.
> > could change apic on fly.
> 
> Quite frankly, while I suggested it as an option, I really suspect it's 
> too much complexity for very little real gain.

I agree.

> Say that you have only four cores, but the kernel decided that it can't 
> use logical flat APIC mode because it sees three disabled sockets and 
> thinks "ok, we may end up with a total of 16 cores if those sockets are 
> hotplugged". Is that such a disaster?
> 
> Realistically, do we really care? Do you have performance numbers that say 
> that logical flat mode is so important that we really _really_ want to use 
> it, 

We had some customers in the past who wanted to use logical flat mode
when there are only 8 logical cpus mainly because they can use chipset
based interrupt routing. I think in one case, they wanted to use HW's
round-robin algorithm so that the interrupt load was uniformly
distributed to all the logical cpu's etc. This is probably fine if all
the logical cpu's are in the same socket (/under same memory
controller). But this might be a bad idea if those 8 logical cpu's are
spread across different sockets etc.

Also, sending IPI's becomes easier as we can target multiple logical
cpu's in the logical IPI destination mask etc.

> even at the cost of nasty run-time complexity with having to 
> re-program the APIC setup entirely when going from 8->9 CPU's?

No. I don't think it is worth it. As we have more and more cores, flat
mode usage will reduce and perhaps will remain mainly for
netbooks/laptops (before we have > 8 logical cpus in that space
aswell...). Also future generations will start supporting x2apic, where
we can use x2apic cluster mode.

For now, I think we should just make sure that for smaller HW configs
like laptops/desktops we should use flat mode when we have no more than
8 logical cpu's and use physical mode when there is a potential of
supporting more than 8 cpu's.

thanks,
suresh

--
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/