Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] s390x: optimization of the check for CPU topology
 change
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        frankja@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, david@redhat.com,
        thuth@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com
References: <1627979206-32663-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
 <1627979206-32663-4-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
 <YQkBfal/OiI2y1lA@osiris>
 <b91ce49f-c73b-bdd2-2389-8313f4baf46c@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <a9a236c0-d248-6be5-883b-c21744d106ea@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 11:28:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b91ce49f-c73b-bdd2-2389-8313f4baf46c@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 8/3/21 10:57 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/3/21 10:42 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>> Now that the PTF instruction is interpreted by the SIE we can optimize
>>> the arch_update_cpu_topology callback to check if there is a real need
>>> to update the topology by using the PTF instruction.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/s390/kernel/topology.c | 3 +++
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c b/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>>> index 26aa2614ee35..741cb447e78e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>>> @@ -322,6 +322,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
>>>       struct device *dev;
>>>       int cpu, rc;
>>> +    if (!ptf(PTF_CHECK))
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +
>>
>> We have a timer which checks if topology changed and then triggers a
>> call to arch_update_cpu_topology() via rebuild_sched_domains().
>> With this change topology changes would get lost.
> 
> For my understanding, if PTF check return 0 it means that there are no 
> topology changes.
> So they could not get lost.
> 
> What did I miss?
> 
> 
I missed that PTF clears the MCTR... and only one of the two calls will 
return 1 while we need both to return 1...


-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen