Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: warn if NUMA configurations conflicts with
 lower layer
To:     "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
References: <1577088979-8545-1-git-send-email-prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
 <20191231164051.GA4864@bogus>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AE1D3@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <20200102112955.GC4864@bogus>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AEB67@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Message-ID: <c43342d0-7e4d-3be0-0fe1-8d802b0d7065@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jan 2020 13:22:19 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AEB67@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02/01/2020 12:47, Zengtao (B) wrote:
>>
>> As I said, wrong configurations need to be detected when generating
>> DT/ACPI if possible. The above will print warning on systems with NUMA
>> within package.
>>
>> NUMA:  0-7, 8-15
>> core_siblings:   0-15
>>
>> The above is the example where the die has 16 CPUs and 2 NUMA nodes
>> within a package, your change throws error to the above config which is
>> wrong.
>>
> From your example, the core 7 and core 8 has got different LLC but the same Low
> Level cache?

AFAIA what matters here is memory controllers, less so LLCs. Cores within
a single die could have private LLCs and separate memory controllers, or
shared LLC and separate memory controllers.

> From schedule view of point, lower level sched domain should be a subset of higher
> Level sched domain.
> 

Right, and that is checked when you have sched_debug on the cmdline
(or write 1 to /sys/kernel/debug/sched_debug & regenerate the sched domains)

Now, I don't know how this plays out for the numa-in-package topologies like
the one suggested by Sudeep. x86 and AMD had to play some games to get
numa-in-package topologies working, see e.g.

  cebf15eb09a2 ("x86, sched: Add new topology for multi-NUMA-node CPUs")

perhaps you need to "lie" here and ensure sub-NUMA sched domain levels are
a subset of the NUMA levels, i.e. lie for core_siblings. I might go and
play with this to see how it behaves.