[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86, acpi: Handle apic/x2apic entries in MADT in correct order
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:27:47PM +0100, Anaczkowski, Lukasz wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lorenzo Pieralisi []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:56 PM
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:30:18AM +0100, Lukasz Anaczkowski wrote:
> > > () it's hard to predict how cores and threads are enumerated
> > So ? Why would the logical cpus order matters at all ? I guessed
> > there are probeable properties that allows the kernel to build
> > the affinity (ie topology list, shared caches, smt siblings, etc).
> > Please explain, since I am confused, to me all you need is a list
> > of existing physical ids, in whatever order they come, that's at least
> > what we need on ARM.
> Hi Lorenzo,
> Sure, let me try to explain this better.
> Proper (i.e. predictable way of CPU enumeration) matters for HPC software,
> (this is where I come from) as there are workloads that have some assumptions
> on CPU enumeration in order to keep cache hit ratio as high as possible.
> E.g. in KNL cores share L2 caches, and if during enumeration logical cores do not
> reflect physical cores, S/W can start affinitize threads to the same physical cores
> causing great performance impact exactly due to L2 cache misses.
> (e.g. s/w assumes that HT CPUs are separated by core count).
> Now, those changes would not be required if someone who have written
> APIC spec had reserved more than just 1 byte for CPU id :)
> Unfortunately, it's the case for x86 APIC ID and once it turns out there's a need
> to enumerate more than that, they added X2APIC spec which has 4 bytes for ID.
> Even that would be also fine if there were just physical cores, but with HT, ACPI
> clearly says, that first must be listed physical cores and only after that HT CPUs
> (and that's why APIC/X2APIC subtables are interleaved).
> When GIC spec was added, someone was smart enough to put 4 bytes from
> the begging, so you don't need to care about it on ARM :)
> > > () enumeration is inconsistent with how threads are enumerated on
> > > other Intel Xeon processors
> > And why does that matter ? Is it because userspace is making assumptions
> > on the logical cpu enumeration scheme ? I am just asking, I would
> > like to understand.
> Yes, HPC software makes some assumptions about CPU enumeration (as mentioned
> above) and having inconsistent enumeration between different x86 CPUs (Xeon vs Xeon Phi)
> make such s/w basically not portable.

Eh, what about "other s/w" (since MADT APIC/X2APIC parsing is unchanged
since 2009 as you mentioned) that relies on the way current enumeration is
implemented ? I will leave that to you.

/me going back to commenting the code :)

> > > So, order in which MADT APIC/X2APIC handlers are passed is
> > > reverse and both handlers are passed to be called during same MADT
> > > table to walk to achieve correct CPU enumeration.
> > Define "correct" please, you define the logical ordering you
> > want to achieve, you do not define why that's more "correct"
> > than the current implementation.
> Ok, probably 'correct' word is not the best here :)
> Does 'compatible' sound better?

No, see above :)


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-09 18:01    [W:0.068 / U:6.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site