[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140916064403.GC14807@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:44:03 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, borislav.petkov@....com,
andreas.herrmann3@....com, hpa@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Consider multiple nodes in a single socket to be
"sane"
* Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:29:20 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:26:41PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm getting the spew below when booting with Haswell (Xeon
> > > E5-2699) CPUs and the "Cluster-on-Die" (CoD) feature
> > > enabled in the BIOS.
> >
> > What is that cluster-on-die thing? I've heard it before but
> > never could find anything on it.
>
> Each CPU has 2.5MB of L3 connected together in a ring that
> makes it all act like a single shared cache. The HW tries to
> place the data so it's closest to the CPU that uses it. On the
> larger processors there are two rings with an interconnect
> between them that adds latency if a cache fetch has to cross
> that. CoD breaks that connection and effectively gives you two
> nodes on one die.
Note that that's not really a 'NUMA node' in the way lots of
places in the kernel assume it: permanent placement assymetry
(and access cost assymetry) of RAM.
It's a new topology construct that needs new handling (and
probably a new mask): Non Uniform Cache Architecture (NUCA)
or so.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists