Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 May 2012 19:13:05 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:310 topology_sane.clone.1+0x6e/0x81() |
| |
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 06:59:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 17:29 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > > I've also looked at this. core_siblings mask is broken with this patch. > > And there is this new irritating warning ... > > Hehe, you made this irritating hardware ;-) But fair enough. > > > I second Boris' suggestion for a fix. But I think the check for > > X86_FEATURE_AMD_DCM should go into topology_sane() which in theory > > could check other things as well. > > Unless you plan to go span cache (or even SMT siblings) over physical > IDs I'd strongly argue against putting it in topology_sane().
Nah, the check goes in match_mc - we just talked it over with Andreas.
> As it stands I think we should discuss the definition for the generic > topology bits (drivers/base/topology.c), because I think your > Magny-Cours thing does the wrong thing here.
"wrong" is such a strong word :-) Please elaborate and I'll have a look.
> The core span in a phys_id is all nice and such, but what does it mean?
AFAICT, this is the physical package id to which the cores belong, i.e. physical socket.
> IOW what would you do with it?
Shoot empty cans with it... :-)
Andreas?
> I would think the LLC range and the node-span are much more useful > things to have. Once you have nodes the sysfs node topology takes > over.
Yes, the LLC range should be the cores belonging to an internal node and the node-span is the cores belonging to a physical socket. I think you can compute anything else from those topo-wise.
Thanks.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
| |