Re: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Fix cpu_coregroup_mask to return correctcpumask on multi-node processors

[Andreas Herrmann]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:35:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:24 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:31 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:36:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:46 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > > > > > The correct mask that describes core-siblings of an processor
> > > > > > is topology_core_cpumask. See topology adapation patches, especially
> > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124964999608179
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > argh, violence, murder kill.. this is the worst possible hack and you're
> > > > > extending it :/
> > > > 
> > > > So this is the third code area
> > > > (besides sched_*_power_savings sysfs interface, and the __cpu_power fiddling)
> > > > that is crap, mess, a hack.
> > > > 
> > > > Didn't know that I'd enter such a minefield when touching this code. ;-(
> > > 
> > > Yeah, you're lucky that way ;-) Its been creaking for a while, and I've
> > > been making noises to the IBM people (who so far have been the main
> > > source of power saving patches) to clean this up, but now you trod onto
> > > all of it at once..
> > > 
> > > > What would be your perferred solution for the
> > > > core_cpumask/llc_shared_map stuff?  Another domain level to get rid of
> > > > this function?
> > > 
> > > Right, I'd like to see everything exposed as domain levels.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > numa-cluster
> > > numa
> > > socket
> > > in-socket-numa
> > > multi-core
> > > shared-cache
> > > core
> > > threads
> > > 
> > > We currently have a fixed order of these things, but I think we should
> > > simply provide helpers for building the sd tree and let the arch code do
> > > that instead of exporting all these masks in a fixed order.
> > > 
> > > Once we get the arch domain tree, we do degenerate stuff to cull all the
> > > trivial domains and fold SD flags.
> > 
> > So any in-socket-numa is only going to haeppen with the arch-defined
> > domain tree.
> 
> Well, we could see what it takes to make this work without that. I mean,
> this is just how I'd like to see it end up, doesn't mean we cannot work
> on it from multiple angles at the same time.

Yup.

> > Now that this is settled you should throw away the
> > __build_sched_domains cleanup patches that are in tip. They won't be
> > of use when domain creation code is basically changed.
> 
> I'm not sure that's needed, we can continue work on refactoring that.
> Small steps towards something better seems a better plan than a single
> large step.

Ok.


Andreas

-- 
Operating | Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
  System  | Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34, 85609 Dornach b. München, Germany
 Research | Geschäftsführer: Andrew Bowd, Thomas M. McCoy, Giuliano Meroni
  Center  | Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis München
  (OSRC)  | Registergericht München, HRB Nr. 43632


--
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/