Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:19:48PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:30:29PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > > > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > > > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > > > +

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:19:48PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:30:29PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > > > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > > > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > > > +

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:30:29PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > > +c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { > > Maybe make life

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 04:30:29PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > > +c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { > > Maybe make life

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:42:41PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > On 03/22/2018 01:49 PM, Alison Schofield wrote: > > > > +*/ > > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > > +c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { > > + /* Use NUMA

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:42:41PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > On 03/22/2018 01:49 PM, Alison Schofield wrote: > > > > +*/ > > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > > +c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { > > + /* Use NUMA

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On 03/22/2018 01:49 PM, Alison Schofield wrote: > > + */ > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > + c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { > + /* Use NUMA instead of coregroups for scheduling: */ > +

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On 03/22/2018 01:49 PM, Alison Schofield wrote: > > + */ > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > + c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { > + /* Use NUMA instead of coregroups for scheduling: */ > +

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On 03/22/2018 04:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> +/* >> + * Return value doesn't actually matter because we >> + * are throwing away coregroups for scheduling anyway. >> + * Return false to bypass topology broken bug messages >> + * and

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On 03/22/2018 04:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> +/* >> + * Return value doesn't actually matter because we >> + * are throwing away coregroups for scheduling anyway. >> + * Return false to bypass topology broken bug messages >> + * and

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > + c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { Maybe make life easier in the future to add more models to the list by using

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > + if (!topology_same_node(c, o) && > + (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > + c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_X)) { Maybe make life easier in the future to add more models to the list by using

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > + /* > + * Some Intel CPUs enumerate an LLC that is shared by > + * multiple NUMA nodes. The LLC on these systems is > + * shared for off-package data access but private to the > + * NUMA node (half of the

Re: [PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote: > + /* > + * Some Intel CPUs enumerate an LLC that is shared by > + * multiple NUMA nodes. The LLC on these systems is > + * shared for off-package data access but private to the > + * NUMA node (half of the

[PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

From: Alison Schofield Intel's Skylake Server CPUs have a different LLC topology than previous generations. When in Sub-NUMA-Clustering (SNC) mode, the package is divided into two "slices", each containing half the cores, half the LLC, and one memory controller and

[PATCH v2] x86,sched: allow topologies where NUMA nodes share an LLC

From: Alison Schofield Intel's Skylake Server CPUs have a different LLC topology than previous generations. When in Sub-NUMA-Clustering (SNC) mode, the package is divided into two "slices", each containing half the cores, half the LLC, and one memory controller and each slice is enumerated to