[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4YFm-2Sc6NOzyWt4-TPDkwY-=5h-Gb99M+tFf-Mczk0Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:52:52 +0100
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] Add a percpu subsection for cache hot data
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:48 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:47 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > * Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - PERCPU_SECTION(INTERNODE_CACHE_BYTES)
> > > > > + PERCPU_SECTION(L1_CACHE_BYTES)
> > > > > ASSERT(__per_cpu_hot_end - __per_cpu_hot_start <= 64, "percpu cache hot section too large")
> > > > >
> > > > > RUNTIME_CONST_VARIABLES
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is probably the right call. The initial percpu section is just
> > > > used by the boot cpu early and as a template for the dynamically
> > > > allocated percpu memory, which should account for the proper
> > > > alignment for NUMA.
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > > Randconfig testing found another corner case with the attached config:
> > >
> > > KSYMS .tmp_vmlinux0.kallsyms.S
> > > AS .tmp_vmlinux0.kallsyms.o
> > > LD .tmp_vmlinux1
> > > ld: percpu cache hot section too large
> > > make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.vmlinux:77: vmlinux] Error 1
> > >
> > > (I haven't figured out the root cause yet.)
> >
> > CONFIG_MPENTIUM4 sets X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT to 7 (128 bytes).
>
> Hm, to resolve this I'd go for the easy out of explicitly using '64' as
> the size limit - like we did it in the C space.
Why not simply:
ASSERT(__per_cpu_hot_end - __per_cpu_hot_start <= L1_CACHE_BYTES, "...")
?
Uros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists