[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP-5=fWBdCVSM_QLcLJ66g+LC0ykrJbZA6mQUsH_++xLormFzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 10:02:44 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Weilin Wang <weilin.wang@...el.com>
Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf pmu intel: Adjust cpumaks for sub-NUMA clusters
on graniterapids
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 9:16 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 01:15:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 09:38:18PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On graniterapids the cache home agent (CHA) and memory controller
> > > (IMC) PMUs all have their cpumask set to per-socket information. In
> > > order for per NUMA node aggregation to work correctly the PMUs cpumask
> > > needs to be set to CPUs for the relevant sub-NUMA grouping.
> >
> > I'm blindly applying it as I can't test these changes, and I think this
> > is bad.
>
> In the end the only review/action I could do was to turn:
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf pmu intel: Adjust cpumaks for sub-NUMA clusters
>
> Into:
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf pmu intel: Adjust cpumasks for sub-NUMA clusters
>
> :-(
>
> Besides the build tests, etc.
It isn't the easiest to test. Let me add Weilin Wang on v3 as I think
she has a graniterapids and could hopefully provide a tested-by tag
:-)
Thanks,
Ian
> - Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists