[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170201214421.ppw2ww3faxxu2jrm@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:44:21 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, Yves Dionne <yves.dionne@...il.com>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Bring back Compute Unit ID
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:37:02PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> This hunk won't work for SMT enabled systems. It'll cause all threads under
> an LLC to be considered SMT siblings. For example, threads 0 &2 will have
> different cpu_core_id, so the first check will fail. But it'll match on the
> second check since cu_id will be initialized to 0.
Good catch.
> To get around this we can set cu_id for all TOPOEXT systems, and update
> cpu_core_id, etc. for SMT enabled systems. This way we can just change
> cpu_core_id to cu_id in match_smt().
Ok, so we want to init ->cu_id to something invalid then. -1, for
example and then do:
if (c->cu_id != -1 && o->cu_id != -1 && (c->cu_id == o->cu_id))
...
Alternatively, we can define an X86_FEATURE_COMPUTE_UNITS or so
synthetic bit which we can check.
One thing I don't want to do is reuse ->cu_id on systems which don't
have CUs.
> I tested this patch, with the above changes, on a Fam17h SMT enabled
> system. I'll test with SMT disabled and also on a fully-loaded Fam15h
> system soon.
Thanks!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists