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:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        "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>
 <c43342d0-7e4d-3be0-0fe1-8d802b0d7065@arm.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <e9cb0848-2808-1b96-4fc4-1f6eacbeb70f@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jan 2020 20:30:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c43342d0-7e4d-3be0-0fe1-8d802b0d7065@arm.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 14:22, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 02/01/2020 12:47, Zengtao (B) wrote:

[...]

>> 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)

You should even get informed in case CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is not set.

   BUG: arch topology borken

With CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG (and a CPU removed from the cpu_mask (DIE level)
on an Arm64 Juno board) you get extra information:

   BUG: arch topology borken
        the MC domain not a subset of the DIE domain

> 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")
> 

Yeah, the reason why we need this change would be interesting.

[...]