Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC | From | Tim Chen <> | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:42:11 -0700 |
| |
On 04/04/2018 10:38 AM, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:24:49AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: >> On 04/03/2018 02:12 PM, Alison Schofield wrote: >> >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * topology_sane() considers LLCs that span NUMA nodes to be >>> + * insane and will display a warning message. Bypass the call >>> + * to topology_sane() for snc_cpu's to avoid that warning. >>> + */ >>> + >>> + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && x86_match_cpu(snc_cpu)) { >>> + /* Indicate that package has NUMA nodes inside: */ >>> + x86_has_numa_in_package = true; >> >> Why does the x86_has_numa_in_package has to be set here when it would have >> been done later in set_cpu_sibling_map? > > Tim, > I had that same thought when you commented on it previously. After > discussing w DaveH, decided that match_llc() and match_die(c,0) > could be different and chose to be (cautiously) redundant. > alisons
If it is redundant, I suggest it be removed, and only added if there is truly a case where the current logic
if (match_die(c, o) && !topology_same_node(c, o)) x86_has_numa_in_package = true;
fails. And also the modification of this logic should be at the same place for easy code maintenance.
Tim
> > > >> >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * false means 'c' does not share the LLC of 'o'. >>> + * Note: this decision gets reflected all the way >>> + * out to userspace. >>> + */ >>> + >>> + return false; >> >> Thanks. >> >> Tim
| |