Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:07:53 -0400 | From | Phil Auld <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arch/arm64: Fix topology initialization for core scheduling |
| |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 05:48:34PM +0200 Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 29/03/2022 21:50, Phil Auld wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:55:08PM +0200 Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >> On 29/03/2022 17:20, Phil Auld wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 04:02:22PM +0200 Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >>>> On 22/03/2022 17:03, Phil Auld wrote: > > [...] > > >>> This instance is an HPE Apollo 70 set to smt-4. I believe it's ThunderX2 > >>> chips. > >>> > >>> ARM (CN9980-2200LG4077-Y21-G) > >> I'm using the same processor just with ACPI/PPTT. > >> > > > > Maybe I'm misinformed about these systems having no PPTT... > > > > I'm reclaiming the system. Is there a way I can tell from userspace? > > # cat /sys/firmware/acpi/tables/PPTT > pptt.dat > # iasl -d pptt.dat > # vim pptt.dsl >
I don't have iasl but
# strings pptt.dat PPTT ServerCL CAVM
So that looks like it has a PPTT entry.
Cheers, Phil
> [...] > > >> so no SMT sched domain. The MPIDR-based topology fallback code in > >> store_cpu_topology() forces `cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1`. > > > > Right. So since I'm getting SMT it must not have package_id == -1. > > In which case you should be able to reproduce it because it must > > be that the call the update_siblings_masks() is required. That > > appears to only be called from store_cpu_topology() which is > > after the scheduler has already setup the core pointers. > > > > The fix could be the same but I should reword the commit message > > since it should effect all SMT arm systems I'd think. > > > > Or maybe the ACPI topology code should call update_sibling_masks(). > >> > >> IMHO this is why on my machine I don't see this issue while running: > >> > >> root@oss-apollo7007:~# stress-ng --prctl 256 -t 60 > >> stress-ng: info: [2388042] dispatching hogs: 256 prctl > >> > >> Is there something I miss in my setup to provoke this issue? > >> > > > > Make sure you have a stress-ng that is new enough and built against > > headers that have the CORE_SCHED prctls defined. > > Ah, I was using a pretty old version 0.11.07. Now I switched to 0.13.12 > which includes: > > 9038e442b92d - stress-prctl: add Linux 5.14 PR_SCHED_CORE prctl > > To get SCHED_CORE activated in stress-prctl.c, as a quick hack, I had to > add the definitions of PR_SCHED_CORE, PR_SCHED_CORE_GET, etc. to this file. > > Now the issue you described triggers on this machine immediately. >
--
| |