[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b91ce49f-c73b-bdd2-2389-8313f4baf46c@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 10:57:15 +0200
From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
thuth@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] s390x: optimization of the check for CPU topology
change
On 8/3/21 10:42 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> Now that the PTF instruction is interpreted by the SIE we can optimize
>> the arch_update_cpu_topology callback to check if there is a real need
>> to update the topology by using the PTF instruction.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/kernel/topology.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c b/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>> index 26aa2614ee35..741cb447e78e 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>> @@ -322,6 +322,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
>> struct device *dev;
>> int cpu, rc;
>>
>> + if (!ptf(PTF_CHECK))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> We have a timer which checks if topology changed and then triggers a
> call to arch_update_cpu_topology() via rebuild_sched_domains().
> With this change topology changes would get lost.
For my understanding, if PTF check return 0 it means that there are no
topology changes.
So they could not get lost.
What did I miss?
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists