[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230616081025.GM38236@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 10:10:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: "Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 2/2] x86/tsc: use logical_packages as a better
estimation of socket numbers
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:02:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 06:53:21AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-06-15 at 11:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > So I have at least two machines where I boot with 'possible_cpus=#'
> > > because the BIOS MADT is reporting a stupid number of CPUs that
> > > aren't
> > > actually there.
> >
> > Does the MADT report those CPUs as disabled but online capable?
> > can you send me a copy of the acpidmp?
>
> Sent privately, it's a bit big.
So if I remove 'possible_cpus=40' it does crazy shit like this:
[ 1.268447] setup_percpu: NR_CPUS:512 nr_cpumask_bits:160 nr_cpu_ids:160 nr_node_ids:2
[ 1.303567] pcpu-alloc: [0] 000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007
[ 1.309871] pcpu-alloc: [0] 008 009 020 021 022 023 024 025
[ 1.316172] pcpu-alloc: [0] 026 027 028 029 040 042 044 046
[ 1.322475] pcpu-alloc: [0] 048 050 052 054 056 058 060 062
[ 1.328777] pcpu-alloc: [0] 064 066 068 070 072 074 076 078
[ 1.335084] pcpu-alloc: [0] 080 082 084 086 088 090 092 094
[ 1.341387] pcpu-alloc: [0] 096 098 100 102 104 106 108 110
[ 1.347688] pcpu-alloc: [0] 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126
[ 1.353992] pcpu-alloc: [0] 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142
[ 1.360293] pcpu-alloc: [0] 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158
[ 1.366596] pcpu-alloc: [1] 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017
[ 1.372900] pcpu-alloc: [1] 018 019 030 031 032 033 034 035
[ 1.379201] pcpu-alloc: [1] 036 037 038 039 041 043 045 047
[ 1.385504] pcpu-alloc: [1] 049 051 053 055 057 059 061 063
[ 1.391806] pcpu-alloc: [1] 065 067 069 071 073 075 077 079
[ 1.398109] pcpu-alloc: [1] 081 083 085 087 089 091 093 095
[ 1.404411] pcpu-alloc: [1] 097 099 101 103 105 107 109 111
[ 1.410714] pcpu-alloc: [1] 113 115 117 119 121 123 125 127
[ 1.417016] pcpu-alloc: [1] 129 131 133 135 137 139 141 143
[ 1.423319] pcpu-alloc: [1] 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159
[ 2.110382] smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
[ 2.112255] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[ 2.113253] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
[ 2.221253] .... node #1, CPUs: #10
[ 0.163522] smpboot: CPU 10 Converting physical 0 to logical die 1
[ 2.337372] #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19
[ 2.504253] .... node #0, CPUs: #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29
[ 2.563253] .... node #1, CPUs: #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39
[ 2.662321] smp: Brought up 2 nodes, 40 CPUs
[ 2.664257] smpboot: Max logical packages: 8
It is an IVB-EP with *2* sockets, 10 cores and SMT, 40 is right, 160 is
quite insane.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists