[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd0a7053f762edaecdf7613da5281a2c2c73ca77.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:23:12 +0000
From: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 2/2] x86/tsc: use logical_packages as a better
estimation of socket numbers
On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 11:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 09:19:18AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
>
> > According to the MADT, there are indeed 40 valid CPUs. And then 80
> > CPUs
> > with
> >
> > APIC ID : FF
> > enabled : 0
> > Online capable : 0
> >
> > a dumb question, why are these CPUs added into the possible_mask?
> > I can dig into this later but I just don't have a quick answer at
> > the
> > moment.
>
> I really don't know.. I've not gotten around to reading that part of
> the
> x86 code yet.
>
>
I did a double check.
The MADT is composed of
1. 40 valid LAPIC entries.
2. 80 invalid LAPIC entries with
APIC ID : FF
Enabled : 0
Online capable: 0
I'm mot sure why "Online capable" is decoded because this new bit is
introduced in ACPI 6.3. Maybe a problem in the acpica tool?
These entries are ignored because of the invalid APIC ID.
3. 120 x2APIC entries with
APIC ID : valid value
Enabled : 0
As "Online capable bit" is not supported, these 120 x2APIC entries
are counted as possible CPUs.
That is why we got 160 possible CPUs.
thanks,
rui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists