[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170420150615.ns3343rokvmc3kjt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:06:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:24:53PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> In this patch I suggest we set __max_logical_packages based on the
> max_physical_pkg_id and total_cpus,
So my 4 socket 144 CPU system will then get max_physical_pkg_id=144,
instead of 4.
This wastes quite a bit of memory for the per-node arrays. Luckily most
are just pointer arrays, but still, wasting 140*8 bytes for each of
them.
> this should be safe and cover all
> possible cases. Alternatively, we may think about eliminating the concept
> of __max_logical_packages completely and relying on max_physical_pkg_id/
> total_cpus where we currently use topology_max_packages().
>
> The issue could've been solved in Xen too I guess. CPUID returning
> x86_max_cores can be tweaked to be the lowerest(?) possible number of
> all logical packages of the guest.
This is getting ludicrous. Xen is plain broken, and instead of fixing
it, you propose to somehow deal with its obviously crack induced
behaviour :-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists