[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170627161657.p4kurw2f3gcavfvz@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:16:57 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leo.duran@....com,
yazen.ghannam@....com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU/AMD: Present package as die instead of socket
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:55:52PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> The reason we are trying to present "package == NUMA node (die)" here is
> because the topology.txt defines package to contain a number of cores plus
> shared resources (e.g. DRAM controller, shared caches, etc). Since the
> cpuinfo_x86.phys_proc_id is also defined as the physical ID of the package,
Ok, it seems we will continue talking past each other here. So let's
look at the issues separately:
* irqbalance fails to allocating IRQs to individual CPU within the die.
Why does it fail? What is the root cause for this?
* The scheduler fails to load-balance across 8 threads within a die
(e.g. running 8-thread application w/ taskset -c 0-7 ) with
the DIE schedule domain omitted due to x86_has_numa_in_package.
Why do you need to load-balance within the die? Why not load-balance
within the 0-15 threads?
What are the disadvantages of the situation now?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists