Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230621174006.42533-1-tony.luck@intel.com> <20230621174006.42533-8-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <CALPaoCgF04M0Jc-c4VmbKkRSFo677SBGoPHzNCSeQ4S6Bqb60w@mail.gmail.com> <SJ1PR11MB60836CD7493B0EAF0F687051FC22A@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ1PR11MB60836CD7493B0EAF0F687051FC22A@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:19:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CALPaoCiaknUMSU4CunSQrRP=WS8DAbToVo5jibh8TaWNZXGMbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] x86/resctrl: Determine if Sub-NUMA Cluster is
 enabled and initialize.
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@quicinc.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tony,

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 6:02=E2=80=AFPM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wr=
ote:
>
> > Unfortunately I'm not getting as good of results with the new series.
> > The main difference seems to be updating the 0xca0 MSR instead of
> > applying the offset to PQR_ASSOC.
>
> I think I may have reversed the actions to update the MSR in one of
> my refactor/rebase. The comment here is correct, but that's not
> what the code is doing :-(
>
> Can you swap the bodies of these two functions and retest?

It's a small improvement, but still not great. Still only node 0
giving believable results, but at least no more empty results from the
second package.

I poked around in /proc/kcore and noticed that my snc_ways is still 1, thou=
gh.

-Peter