[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96fe20ac-bea0-7eee-cfb5-198a906e5399@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:08:32 +0100
From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Nico Boehr <nrb@...ux.ibm.com>, 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, wintera@...ux.ibm.com, seiden@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/1] s390x: KVM: guest support for topology function
On 2/18/22 16:10, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>>>> + /* The real CPU backing up the vCPU moved to another socket
>>>> */
>>>> + if (topology_physical_package_id(vcpu->cpu) !=
>>>> + topology_physical_package_id(vcpu->arch.prev_cpu))
>>>> + return true;
>>>
>>> Why is it OK to look just at the physical package ID here? What if the
>>> vcpu for example moves to a different book, which has a core with the
>>> same physical package ID?
>>>
>>
>> You are right, we should look at the drawer and book id too.
>> Something like that I think:
>>
>> if ((topology_physical_package_id(vcpu->cpu) !=
>> topology_physical_package_id(vcpu->arch.prev_cpu)) ||
>> (topology_book_id(vcpu->cpu) !=
>> topology_book_id(vcpu->arch.prev_cpu)) ||
>> (topology_drawer_id(vcpu->cpu) !=
>> topology_drawer_id(vcpu->arch.prev_cpu)))
>> return true;
>
> You only need to check if prev_cpu is present in topology_core_cpumask(cpu).
>
Yes, thanks.
Regards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists