From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
"ananth@in.ibm.com" <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:13:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86802c441001121013o4b8775edl1bc36f120e072b75@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001120719260.17145@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >
>> > Slightly more intelligent:
>> >
>> > - Look at the ACPI socket count, and hey, if it says it might have more
>> > sockets - whether they are really hotplug or not, don't use flat mode,
>> > because we simply don't know. But do _not_ do some kind of DMI table to
>> > say one way or the other.
>>
>> that acpi could lie, for example, some system share one BIOS between 2
>> socket/4 socket/8 sockets
>> model. and BIOS could have bunch disabled entries in MADT. or MPTABLE.
>
> That's fine. So it would mean that sometimes we'd use non-flat mode even
> if we strictly didn't need to (because we _think_ that there could be four
> sockets even though there is only one, and three are disabled). But things
> would still work without any special cases.
>
>> > And if it's _really_ important:
>> >
>> > - if flat mode is so important that you want to enable it whenever
>> > possible, what about enabling/disabling it dynamically at CPU hotplug
>> > time? That does sound _very_ painful, but it's still better than having
>> > to maintain some list of all systems that can ever hot-plug.
>>
>> interesting, could be done.
>> init_apic_ldr is called even for physical flat on 64 bit.
>> could change apic on fly.
>
> Quite frankly, while I suggested it as an option, I really suspect it's
> too much complexity for very little real gain.
>
> Say that you have only four cores, but the kernel decided that it can't
> use logical flat APIC mode because it sees three disabled sockets and
> thinks "ok, we may end up with a total of 16 cores if those sockets are
> hotplugged". Is that such a disaster?
>
> Realistically, do we really care? Do you have performance numbers that say
> that logical flat mode is so important that we really _really_ want to use
> it, even at the cost of nasty run-time complexity with having to
> re-program the APIC setup entirely when going from 8->9 CPU's?
ok let stay with option 1.
and would like to use DMI to blacklist those systems that do need treat disabled
cpus MADT as hotplug cpus.
YH
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-12 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-12 2:48 [RFC PATCH 1/4] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86: using logical flat for amd cpu too Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:47 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 8:27 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2010-01-12 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-13 4:53 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86: according to nr_cpu_ids to decide if need to leave logical flat Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 2:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as hotplug cpus Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 3:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 8:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 15:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 17:54 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-01-12 18:13 ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2010-01-12 18:24 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-01-12 19:19 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 9:15 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-01-12 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-01-12 16:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-01-12 16:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-12 17:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-01-12 3:06 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early Linus Torvalds
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=86802c441001121013o4b8775edl1bc36f120e072b75@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yinghai@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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®