Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:00:45 -0700 | From | Alison Schofield <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC |
| |
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:42:11AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > 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.
That makes good sense. I'll look to define the difference or remove the redundancy.
alisons
> > 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 >
| |