From: "Michal Suchánek" <msuchanek@suse.de>
To: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com,
christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries/cpuhp: respect current SMT when adding new CPU
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 16:04:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230213150429.GZ19419@kitsune.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ilg5aahx.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 08:46:50AM -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> > When a new CPU is added, the kernel is activating all its threads. This
> > leads to weird, but functional, result when adding CPU on a SMT 4 system
> > for instance.
> >
> > Here the newly added CPU 1 has 8 threads while the other one has 4 threads
> > active (system has been booted with the 'smt-enabled=4' kernel option):
> >
> > ltcden3-lp12:~ # ppc64_cpu --info
> > Core 0: 0* 1* 2* 3* 4 5 6 7
> > Core 1: 8* 9* 10* 11* 12* 13* 14* 15*
> >
> > There is no SMT value in the kernel. It is possible to run unbalanced LPAR
> > with 2 threads for a CPU, 4 for another one, and 5 on the latest.
> >
> > To work around this possibility, and assuming that the LPAR run with the
> > same number of threads for each CPU, which is the common case,
>
> I am skeptical at best of baking that assumption into this code. Mixed
> SMT modes within a partition doesn't strike me as an unreasonable
> possibility for some use cases. And if that's wrong, then we should just
> add a global smt value instead of using heuristics.
>
> > the number
> > of active threads of the CPU doing the hot-plug operation is computed. Only
> > that number of threads will be activated for the newly added CPU.
> >
> > This way on a LPAR running in SMT=4, newly added CPU will be running 4
> > threads, which is what a end user would expect.
>
> I could see why most users would prefer this new behavior. But surely
> some users have come to expect the existing behavior, which has been in
> place for years, and developed workarounds that might be broken by this
> change?
>
> I would suggest that to handle this well, we need to give user space
> more ability to tell the kernel what actions to take on added cores, on
> an opt-in basis.
>
> This could take the form of extending the DLPAR sysfs command set:
>
> Option 1 - Add a flag that tells the kernel not to online any threads at
> all; user space will online the desired threads later.
>
> Option 2 - Add an option that tells the kernel which SMT mode to apply.
powerpc-utils grew some drmgr hooks recently so maybe the policy can be
moved to userspace?
Thanks
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-13 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-13 12:45 Laurent Dufour
2023-02-13 14:46 ` Nathan Lynch
2023-02-13 15:04 ` Michal Suchánek [this message]
2023-02-13 15:40 ` Nathan Lynch
2023-02-14 15:32 ` Laurent Dufour
2023-03-30 15:51 ` Laurent Dufour
2023-03-30 16:19 ` Michal Suchánek
2023-03-31 15:11 ` Laurent Dufour
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=20230213150429.GZ19419@kitsune.suse.cz \
--to=msuchanek@suse.de \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=ldufour@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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®