Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1627604
| From | Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit |
| Date | 2017-04-20 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tymvf-2j8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tykjM-11j-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tylSy-26m-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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. -- Vitaly
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