[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h=OG-wgcZBD8mZ51+kb7j3yeDZQt9XfO=fdasLRgQkEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 18:13:26 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "intel_idle: Rescan "dead" SMT siblings during, initialization"
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:26 PM Christian Loehle
> <christian.loehle@....com> wrote:
> >
> > This reverts commit a430c11f401589a0f4f57fd398271a5d85142c7a.
> >
> > Calling arch_cpu_rescan_dead_smt_siblings() in intel_idle_init with
> > boot parameter nosmt and maxcpus active hotplugged boot-offline CPUs
> > in (and leave them online) which weren't supposed to be online.
> >
> > With the revert and nosmt and maxcpus=12 on a raptor lake:
> > cpu online capacity
> > cpu0 1 1009
> > cpu1 0 -
> > cpu2 1 1009
> > cpu3 0 -
> > cpu4 1 1009
> > cpu5 0 -
> > cpu6 1 1009
> > cpu7 0 -
> > cpu8 1 1024
> > cpu9 0 -
> > cpu10 1 1024
> > cpu11 0 -
> > cpu12 1 1009
> > cpu13 0 -
> > cpu14 1 1009
> > cpu15 0 -
> > cpu16 1 623
> > cpu17 1 623
> > cpu18 1 623
> > cpu19 1 623
> > cpu20 0 -
> > cpu21 0 -
> > cpu22 0 -
> > cpu23 0 -
> >
> > Previously:
> > cpu online capacity
> > cpu0 1 1009
> > cpu1 0 -
> > cpu2 1 1009
> > cpu3 0 -
> > cpu4 1 1009
> > cpu5 0 -
> > cpu6 1 1009
> > cpu7 0 -
> > cpu8 1 1024
> > cpu9 0 -
> > cpu10 1 1024
> > cpu11 0 -
> > cpu12 1 1009
> > cpu13 0 -
> > cpu14 1 1009
> > cpu15 0 -
> > cpu16 1 623
> > cpu17 1 623
> > cpu18 1 623
> > cpu19 1 623
> > cpu20 1 623
> > cpu21 1 623
> > cpu22 1 623
> > cpu23 1 623
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
> > ---
> > Rafael, I don't immediately see how to fix this properly so I won't
> > try to, feel free to treat this as a bug report.
>
> Sure, thanks for reporting this!
>
> Well, I think that cpuhp_smt_enable() is missing a check. It looks to
> me like it should do the topology_is_primary_thread(cpu) check like
> cpuhp_smt_disable().
>
> I'll cut a test patch for this later.
Something like the attached one, perhaps. I haven't tested it yet,
but I'll do that later.
View attachment "kernel-cpu-enable-smt.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (505 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists