From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752801AbdBAVoo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:44:44 -0500
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:52678 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750903AbdBAVon (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:44:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:44:21 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, Yves Dionne <yves.dionne@gmail.com>,
        Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Bring back Compute Unit ID
Message-ID: <20170201214421.ppw2ww3faxxu2jrm@pd.tnic>
References: <20170201200237.36s2jwjgxi24we66@pd.tnic>
 <CY4PR12MB16402B523C336338BC3667B1F84D0@CY4PR12MB1640.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR12MB16402B523C336338BC3667B1F84D0@CY4PR12MB1640.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:37:02PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> This hunk won't work for SMT enabled systems. It'll cause all threads under
> an LLC to be considered SMT siblings. For example, threads 0 &2 will have
> different cpu_core_id, so the first check will fail. But it'll match on the
> second check since cu_id will be initialized to 0.

Good catch.

> To get around this we can set cu_id for all TOPOEXT systems, and update
> cpu_core_id, etc. for SMT enabled systems. This way we can just change
> cpu_core_id to cu_id in match_smt().

Ok, so we want to init ->cu_id to something invalid then. -1, for
example and then do:

	if (c->cu_id != -1 && o->cu_id != -1 && (c->cu_id == o->cu_id))
		...

Alternatively, we can define an X86_FEATURE_COMPUTE_UNITS or so
synthetic bit which we can check.

One thing I don't want to do is reuse ->cu_id on systems which don't
have CUs.

> I tested this patch,  with the above changes, on a Fam17h SMT enabled
> system. I'll test with SMT disabled and also on a fully-loaded Fam15h
> system soon.

Thanks!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.