Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/topology: Introduce NUMA identity node sched
 domain
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <1502378452-6632-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
 <20170810164149.2rkkp55km5cxcarg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ab9866af-f88b-91d8-0e48-423dbcb00ae9@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@suse.de
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Message-ID: <f1eed7cb-ea9f-08c4-153d-36006ffc033c@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:58:22 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ab9866af-f88b-91d8-0e48-423dbcb00ae9@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2017 05:58:30.0824 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR12MB1743
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1318
Lines: 35


On 8/11/17 11:57, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>
>>> [...]
>>> @@ -1445,9 +1448,24 @@ void sched_init_numa(void)
>>>          tl[i] = sched_domain_topology[i];
>>>
>>>      /*
>>> +     * Ignore the NUMA identity level if it has the same cpumask
>>> +     * as previous level. This is the case for:
>>> +     *   - System with last-level-cache (MC) sched domain span a NUMA node.
>>> +     *   - System with DIE sched domain span a NUMA node.
>>> +     *
>>> +     * Assume all NUMA nodes are identical, so only check node 0.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (!cpumask_equal(sched_domains_numa_masks[0][0], tl[i-1].mask(0)))
>>> +        tl[i++] = (struct sched_domain_topology_level){
>>> +            .mask = sd_numa_mask,
>>> +            .numa_level = 0,
>>> +            SD_INIT_NAME(NODE)
>>> +        };
>>
>> So what you've forgotten to mention is that for those systems where the
>> LLC == NODE this now superfluous level gets removed by the degenerate
>> code. Have you verified that does the right thing?
>
> Let me check with that one and get back.

Actually, it is not removed by the degenerate code. That is what this logic is 
for. It checks for LCC == NODE or DIE == NODE before setting up the NODE sched 
level. I can update the comment. This has also been tested on system w/ LLC == NODE.

Thanks,
Suravee