[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <af770863e70340d294c324fd7004f658@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 23:09:27 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
"brice.goglin@...il.com" <brice.goglin@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86, sched: Allow NUMA nodes to share an LLC on Intel
platforms
> +#define X86_BUG_NUMA_SHARES_LLC X86_BUG(25) /* CPU may enumerate an LLC shared by multiple NUMA nodes */
During internal review I wondered why this is a "BUG" rather than a "FEATURE" bit.
Apparently, the suggestion for "BUG" came from earlier community discussions.
Historically it may have seemed reasonable to say that a cache cannot span
NUMA domains. But with more and more things moving off the motherboard
and into the socket, this doesn't seem too weird now.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists