Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1627620
| From | Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit |
| Date | 2017-04-20 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tymOD-2ES-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tykjM-11j-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tylSy-26m-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tymvf-2j8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 04/20/2017 11:40 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes: > >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:24:53PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>> In this patch I suggest we set __max_logical_packages based on the >>> max_physical_pkg_id and total_cpus, >> So my 4 socket 144 CPU system will then get max_physical_pkg_id=144, >> instead of 4. >> >> This wastes quite a bit of memory for the per-node arrays. Luckily most >> are just pointer arrays, but still, wasting 140*8 bytes for each of >> them. >> >>> this should be safe and cover all >>> possible cases. Alternatively, we may think about eliminating the concept >>> of __max_logical_packages completely and relying on max_physical_pkg_id/ >>> total_cpus where we currently use topology_max_packages(). >>> >>> The issue could've been solved in Xen too I guess. CPUID returning >>> x86_max_cores can be tweaked to be the lowerest(?) possible number of >>> all logical packages of the guest. >> This is getting ludicrous. Xen is plain broken, and instead of fixing >> it, you propose to somehow deal with its obviously crack induced >> behaviour :-( > Totally agree and I don't like the solution I propose (and that's why > this is RFC)... The problem is that there are such Xen setups in the > wild and with the recent changes some guests will BUG() :-( > > Alternatively, we can just remove the BUG() and do something with CPUs > which have their pkg >= __max_logical_packages, e.g. assign them to the > last package. Far from ideal but will help to avoid the regression. Do you observe this failure on PV or HVM guest? We've had a number of issues with topology discovery for PV guests but AFAIK they have been addressed (so far). I wonder though whether it would make sense to have some sort of a callback (or an smp_ops.op) to override native topology info, if needed. -boris
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> - 2017-04-20 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-20 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> - 2017-04-20 17:50 +0200
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2017-04-20 18:10 +0200
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> - 2017-04-20 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-20 18:20 +0200
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2017-04-20 19:20 +0200
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> - 2017-04-20 19:10 +0200
csiph-web