linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/smpboot: avoid SMT domain attach/destroy if SMT is not enabled

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <197be3cbf43.ddde9ea9979051.5386583481090657375@linux.beauty>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:29:01 +0800
From: Li Chen <me@...ux.beauty>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	"K Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
	"Sohil Mehta" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
	"Brian Gerst" <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"Patryk Wlazlyn" <patryk.wlazlyn@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
	"Li Chen" <chenl311@...natelecom.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/smpboot: avoid SMT domain attach/destroy if
 SMT is not enabled

Hi Peter,

 ---- On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:29:32 +0800  Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote --- 
 > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:45:50AM +0800, Li Chen wrote:
 > > From: Li Chen <chenl311@...natelecom.cn>
 > > 
 > > Currently, the SMT domain is added into sched_domain_topology by default.
 > > 
 > > If cpu_attach_domain() finds that the CPU SMT domain’s cpumask_weight
 > > is just 1, it will destroy it.
 > > 
 > > On a large machine, such as one with 512 cores, this results in
 > > 512 redundant domain attach/destroy operations.
 > > 
 > > Avoid these unnecessary operations by simply checking
 > > cpu_smt_num_threads and remove SMT domain if the SMT domain is not
 > > enabled, and adjust the PKG index accordingly if NUMA-in-package
 > > invalidates that level as well.
 > > 
 > > Signed-off-by: Li Chen <chenl311@...natelecom.cn>
 > > ---
 > > changelog:
 > > v2: fix wording issue as suggested by Thomas [1]
 > > v3: remove pointless memset and adjust PKG index accordingly,
 > >     as suggested by Thomas [2] 
 > > 
 > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/87msa2r018.ffs@tglx/
 > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/875xglntx1.ffs@tglx/
 > > 
 > >  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 > > 
 > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
 > > index 7d202f9785362..4b6daa1545445 100644
 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
 > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
 > > @@ -494,13 +494,29 @@ static struct sched_domain_topology_level x86_topology[] = {
 > >  
 > >  static void __init build_sched_topology(void)
 > >  {
 > > +    bool smt_dropped = false;
 > > +
 > > +    if (cpu_smt_num_threads <= 1) {
 > > +        /*
 > > +         * SMT level is x86_topology[0].  Shift the array left by one,
 > > +         */
 > > +        memmove(&x86_topology[0], &x86_topology[1],
 > > +            sizeof(x86_topology) - sizeof(x86_topology[0]));
 > > +        smt_dropped = true;
 > > +    }
 > > +
 > >      /*
 > >       * When there is NUMA topology inside the package invalidate the
 > >       * PKG domain since the NUMA domains will auto-magically create the
 > >       * right spanning domains based on the SLIT.
 > >       */
 > >      if (x86_has_numa_in_package) {
 > > -        unsigned int pkgdom = ARRAY_SIZE(x86_topology) - 2;
 > > +        unsigned int pkgdom;
 > > +
 > > +        if (smt_dropped)
 > > +            pkgdom = ARRAY_SIZE(x86_topology) - 3;
 > > +        else
 > > +            pkgdom = ARRAY_SIZE(x86_topology) - 2;
 > >  
 > >          memset(&x86_topology[pkgdom], 0, sizeof(x86_topology[pkgdom]));
 > >      }
 > 
 > Oh gawd, and you all really think this is better than dynamically
 > creating that array?
 > 
 > This is quite terrible.
 > 

Do Thomas and you still need to agree on switching to a static array? I'm unsure of the rule.

BTW, initially, I had a patch that didn't include that dynamic/static array change. I don't know if this is ok for you:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/1965cae22a0.12ab5a70c833868.7155412488566097801@linux.beauty/

Regards,
Li