From: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] perf: Optimise topology iteration
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:29:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1298258964.17806.48.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110220211512.GT5818@one.firstfloor.org>
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 05:15 +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:57:39AM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > Currently we iterate the full machine looking for a matching core_id/nb
> > for the percore and the amd northbridge stuff , using a smaller topology
> > mask makes sense.
>
> This is still wrong for CPU hotplug. The CPU "owning" the per core
> does not necessarily need to be online anymore.
This is remain issue for hotplug case, no matter we use
for_each_online_cpu or topology_thread_cpumask.
> Please drop this patch.
Re-look at the code, I think for_each_online_cpu is wrong for percore,
we should use topology_thread_cpumask instead.
for_each_online_cpu(i) {
struct intel_percore *pc = per_cpu(cpu_hw_events, i).per_core;
if (pc && pc->core_id == core_id) {
kfree(cpuc->per_core);
cpuc->per_core = pc;
break;
}
}
Assume 2 sockets,
//socket 0
cpu 0: core_id 0
cpu 1: core_id 0
//socket 1
cpu 2: core_id 0
cpu 3: core_id 0
If for_each_online_cpu is used, apparently 4 logical cpus will share the
same percore. This is wrong.
If topology_thread_cpumask is used, then cpu0 and cpu1 share one percore
and cpu2 and cpu3 share another percore. This is what we want.
Lin Ming
>
> -Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-21 3:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-20 16:57 Lin Ming
2011-02-20 21:15 ` Andi Kleen
2011-02-21 3:29 ` Lin Ming [this message]
2011-02-21 3:32 ` Andi Kleen
2011-02-21 5:01 ` Lin Ming
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=1298258964.17806.48.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com \
--to=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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
Powered by JetHome