Re: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Fix cpu_coregroup_mask to return correct cpumask on multi-node processors

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:21:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:46 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > > > The correct mask that describes core-siblings of an processor
> > > > is topology_core_cpumask. See topology adapation patches, especially
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124964999608179
> > > 
> > > argh, violence, murder kill.. this is the worst possible hack and 
> > > you're extending it :/
> > 
> > I think most of the trouble here comes from having inconsistent 
> > names, a rather static structure for sched-domains setup and 
> > then we are confusing things back and forth.
> > 
> > Right now we have thread/sibling, core, CPU/socket and node, 
> > with many data structures around these hardcoded. Certain 
> > scheduler features only operate on the hardcoded fields.
> > 
> > Now Magny-Cours adds a socket internal node construct to the 
> > whole thing, names it randomly and basically breaks the 
> > semi-static representation.
> > 
> > We cannot just flip around our static names and hope it goes 
> > well and everything just drops into place. Everything just falls 
> > apart really instead.
> > 
> > Instead we should have an arch-defined tree and a CPU 
> > architecture dependent ASCII name associated with each level - 
> > but not hardcoded into the scheduler.
> 
> I admit that it's strange to have the x86 specific SCHED_SMT/MC 
> snippets in common code.
> 
> And the NUMA/SD_NODE stuff is not used by all architectures 
> either.
> 
> Having an arch-defined tree seems the right thing to do.

yep, with generic helpers to reduce per arch bloat. 
(named/structured in a neutral way)

> > Plus we should have independent scheduler domains feature flags 
> > that can be turned on/off in various levels of that tree, 
> > depending on the cache and interconnect properties of the 
> > hardware - without having to worry about what the ASCII name 
> > says. Those features should be capable to work not just on the 
> > lowest level of the tree, but on higher levels too, regardless 
> > whether that level is called a 'core', a 'socket' or an 
> > 'internal node' on the ASCII level really.
> > 
> > This is why i insisted on handling the Magny-Cours topology 
> > discovery and enumeration patches together with the scheduler 
> > patches. It can easily become a mess if extended.
> 
> I don't buy this argument.
> 
> The main source of information when building sched-domains will be 
> the CPU topology. That must be provided somehow independent of how 
> scheduling domains are created. When the domains are built you 
> just need to know which cpumask to use when the sched_groups and 
> domain's span are determined.
> 
> Thus I think the topology detection is rather self-contained and 
> can/should be provided independent of how the scheduler side is 
> going to be implemented.

This is the sysfs bits? What is this needed for exactly? The 
scheduler is pretty much the most important thing to tune in a 
topology aware manner, besides memory allocations.

	Ingo