Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: construct all sibling maps if smt

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Wed May 29 2013 - 07:11:13 EST



* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:26:01PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 07:09:00PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > Commit 316ad248307fb ("sched/x86: Rewrite set_cpu_sibling_map()") broke
> > > the construction of sibling maps, which also broke the booted_cores
> > > accounting.
> > >
> > > Before the rewrite, if smt was present, then each map was updated for
> > > each smt sibling. After the rewrite only cpu_sibling_mask gets updated,
> > > as the llc and core maps depend on 'has_mc = x86_max_cores > 1' instead.
> > > This leads to problems with topologies like the following
> > >
> > > (qemu -smp sockets=2,cores=1,threads=2)
> > >
> > > processor : 0
> > > physical id : 0
> > > siblings : 1 <= should be 2
> > > core id : 0
> > > cpu cores : 1
> > >
> > > processor : 1
> > > physical id : 0
> > > siblings : 1 <= should be 2
> > > core id : 0
> > > cpu cores : 0 <= should be 1
> > >
> > > processor : 2
> > > physical id : 1
> > > siblings : 1 <= should be 2
> > > core id : 0
> > > cpu cores : 1
> > >
> > > processor : 3
> > > physical id : 1
> > > siblings : 1 <= should be 2
> > > core id : 0
> > > cpu cores : 0 <= should be 1
> > >
> > > This patch restores the former construction by defining has_mc as
> > > (has_smt || x86_max_cores > 1). This should be fine as there were no
> > > (has_smt && !has_mc) conditions in the context.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > index 9c73b51817e47..886a3234eaff3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > @@ -372,15 +372,15 @@ static bool __cpuinit match_mc(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, struct cpuinfo_x86 *o)
> > >
> > > void __cpuinit set_cpu_sibling_map(int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - bool has_mc = boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores > 1;
> > > bool has_smt = smp_num_siblings > 1;
> > > + bool has_mc = has_smt || boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores > 1;
> > > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(cpu);
> > > struct cpuinfo_x86 *o;
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_setup_mask);
> > >
> > > - if (!has_smt && !has_mc) {
> > > + if (!has_mc) {
> > > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
> > > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu));
> > > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_core_mask(cpu));
> > > --
> > > 1.8.1.4
> > >
> >
> > Any acks? This patch fixes a regression. Also, in case anybody is
> > wondering, this is not the same regression as was already fixed with
> >
> > ceb1cbac8eda6 sched/x86: Calculate booted cores after construction of sibling_mask
> >
> > (Hmm, I probably should have renamed has_mc to has_mp, as the redefinition
> > expands its scope. I'm not sure if that deserves a v2 though.)
>
> Right, took me a while to bend my brain around that code again -- I
> obviously don't have the best track record since this is the second bug
> in it since I rewrote the thing (with the intent of making it 'easier'
> to read ha!).
>
> Yes, I think your patch is correct, and your suggestion of doing
> s/has_mc/has_mp/ seems a sensible one too.
>
> Thanks!

Andrew, it would be nice to have a -v2 with that rename and with Peter's
Acked-by included.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/