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
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * 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
