linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

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]

Message-ID: <20180322232030.GA4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:20:30 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Luck@...son-desk.jf.intel.com, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, brice.goglin@...il.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an
 LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> +	/*
> +	 * Some Intel CPUs enumerate an LLC that is shared by
> +	 * multiple NUMA nodes.  The LLC on these systems is
> +	 * shared for off-package data access but private to the
> +	 * NUMA node (half of the package) for on-package access.
> +	 *
> +	 * CPUID can only enumerate the cache as being shared *or*
> +	 * unshared, but not this particular configuration.  The
> +	 * CPU in this case enumerates the cache to be shared
> +	 * across the entire package (spanning both NUMA nodes).
> +	 */
> +	if (!topology_same_node(c, o) &&
> +	    (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
> +	     c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) {
> +		/* Use NUMA instead of coregroups for scheduling: */
> +		x86_has_numa_in_package = true;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Return value doesn't actually matter because we
> +		 * are throwing away coregroups for scheduling anyway.
> +		 * Return false to bypass topology broken bug messages
> +		 * and fixups in sched_domain().
> +		 */
> +		return false;

IIRC that return value _does_ matter because the resulting mask still
ends up user visible in sysfs.

IIRC I went over with this dhansen a week or so ago, but I cannot now
recall what we settled on as being the right return value and for what
reason.