[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b69fd9da-7b98-4df8-9446-2fe6a717f50f@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:48:11 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman
<mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Tim Chen
<tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, "Libo
Chen" <libo.chen@...cle.com>, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>, Len Brown
<len.brown@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chen Yu
<yu.c.chen@...el.com>, "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>, "Zhao
Liu" <zhao1.liu@...el.com>, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix NUMA sched domain build errors for GNR-X and
CWF-X
Hello Tim,
On 8/23/2025 1:44 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
> While testing Granite Rapids X (GNR-X) and Clearwater Forest X (CWF-X) in
> SNc-3 mode, we encountered sched domain build errors reported in dmesg.
> Asymmetric node distances from local node to to nodes in remote package
> was not expected by the scheduler domain code and also led to excessive
> number of sched domain hierachy levels.
>
> Fix the missing NUMA domain level set in topology_span_sane() check and
> also simplify the distance to nodes in remote package to retain distance
> symmetry and make the NUMA topology sane for GNR-X and CWF-X.
I did some sanity testing on an EPYC platform on NPS2/4 and didn't
see any changes to the sched domain layout or the sched_node_distance()
being used when constructing them with the series.
Feel free to include:
Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists