From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
"ananth@in.ibm.com" <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:54:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1263318889.2854.146.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001120719260.17145@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 07:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > And if it's _really_ important:
> > >
> > > - if flat mode is so important that you want to enable it whenever
> > > possible, what about enabling/disabling it dynamically at CPU hotplug
> > > time? That does sound _very_ painful, but it's still better than having
> > > to maintain some list of all systems that can ever hot-plug.
> >
> > interesting, could be done.
> > init_apic_ldr is called even for physical flat on 64 bit.
> > could change apic on fly.
>
> Quite frankly, while I suggested it as an option, I really suspect it's
> too much complexity for very little real gain.
I agree.
> Say that you have only four cores, but the kernel decided that it can't
> use logical flat APIC mode because it sees three disabled sockets and
> thinks "ok, we may end up with a total of 16 cores if those sockets are
> hotplugged". Is that such a disaster?
>
> Realistically, do we really care? Do you have performance numbers that say
> that logical flat mode is so important that we really _really_ want to use
> it,
We had some customers in the past who wanted to use logical flat mode
when there are only 8 logical cpus mainly because they can use chipset
based interrupt routing. I think in one case, they wanted to use HW's
round-robin algorithm so that the interrupt load was uniformly
distributed to all the logical cpu's etc. This is probably fine if all
the logical cpu's are in the same socket (/under same memory
controller). But this might be a bad idea if those 8 logical cpu's are
spread across different sockets etc.
Also, sending IPI's becomes easier as we can target multiple logical
cpu's in the logical IPI destination mask etc.
> even at the cost of nasty run-time complexity with having to
> re-program the APIC setup entirely when going from 8->9 CPU's?
No. I don't think it is worth it. As we have more and more cores, flat
mode usage will reduce and perhaps will remain mainly for
netbooks/laptops (before we have > 8 logical cpus in that space
aswell...). Also future generations will start supporting x2apic, where
we can use x2apic cluster mode.
For now, I think we should just make sure that for smaller HW configs
like laptops/desktops we should use flat mode when we have no more than
8 logical cpu's and use physical mode when there is a potential of
supporting more than 8 cpu's.
thanks,
suresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-12 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-12 2:48 [RFC PATCH 1/4] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86: using logical flat for amd cpu too Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:47 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 8:27 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2010-01-12 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-13 4:53 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86: according to nr_cpu_ids to decide if need to leave logical flat Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 15:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 17:54 ` Suresh Siddha [this message]
2010-01-12 18:13 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 18:24 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-01-12 19:19 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 9:15 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-01-12 16:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-01-12 16:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 17:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-01-12 3:06 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1263318889.2854.146.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com \
--to=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®