From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc: Sudeep.Holla@arm.com, Will.Deacon@arm.com,
Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, Robin.Murphy@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: topology: Avoid checking numa mask for scheduler MC selection
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:44:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180606144444.GB8461@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180605190837.493505-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:08:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The numa mask subset check has problems if !CONFIG_NUMA, over hotplug
> operations or during early boot. Lets disable the NUMA siblings checks
> for the time being, as NUMA in socket machines have LLC's that will
> assure that the scheduler topology isn't "borken".
Could we add an explanation why the numa node mask check is needed in
the first place?
IIUC, we have the check in case the LLC is shared across numa nodes as
this would cause core_siblings > cpumask_of_node() which breaks the
scheduler topology.
While sharing LLC across numa nodes seems quite unusual, I think it is
allowed by ACPI. Those systems might already be broken before, so might
not change anything. It is just worth noting why the check should be
added back later.
Morten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-05 19:08 Jeremy Linton
2018-06-06 10:05 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-06 14:36 ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-06 14:44 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2018-06-06 14:53 ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-06 15:07 ` Morten Rasmussen
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=20180606144444.GB8461@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Robin.Murphy@arm.com \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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®