From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] x86/smpboot: Set safer __max_logical_packages limit
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:09:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a7b88190-8250-df76-70fc-f64beebb33eb@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170420161503.vr7nc2czjht7g2v3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 04/20/2017 12:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:40:37PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> This is getting ludicrous. Xen is plain broken, and instead of fixing
>>> it, you propose to somehow deal with its obviously crack induced
>>> behaviour :-(
>> Totally agree and I don't like the solution I propose (and that's why
>> this is RFC)... The problem is that there are such Xen setups in the
>> wild and with the recent changes some guests will BUG() :-(
>>
>> Alternatively, we can just remove the BUG() and do something with CPUs
>> which have their pkg >= __max_logical_packages, e.g. assign them to the
>> last package. Far from ideal but will help to avoid the regression.
> So currently none of the stuff that uses this should appear in Xen. Its
> all drivers for hardware that isn't virtualized (afaik). So assigning to
> the last package 'works'.
>
> But the moment this ends up getting used that explodes, because we'll
> need different object instances for each piece of hardware.
This already gets used. I don't remember details but we had to fix
something due to RAPL code referencing topology info (and yes, there is
no reason for a guest to use RAPL, but we shouldn't crash neither)
>
> There just isn't a good solution; on the one hand the BIOS is prone to
> providing crap numbers, on the other hand virt (esp. Xen as it turns
> out) provides absolutely bonkers/inconsistent topology information.
>
> Very frustrating :-/
>
So we might need a way to bypass topology discovery and present some
sort of default topology (single package, or 1 CPU per package, for
example) and ignore APICID and all that.
-boris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-20 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-20 13:24 Vitaly Kuznetsov
2017-04-20 15:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 15:40 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2017-04-20 16:01 ` [Xen-devel] " Boris Ostrovsky
2017-04-20 16:21 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2017-04-20 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 17:09 ` Boris Ostrovsky [this message]
2017-04-20 17:04 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper
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=a7b88190-8250-df76-70fc-f64beebb33eb@oracle.com \
--to=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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®