Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932577Ab2EUXCK (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2012 19:02:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:46684 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932544Ab2EUXCH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2012 19:02:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120521081330.GB28930@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> References: <20120518102640.GB31517@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> <20120521081330.GB28930@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:02:06 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uH5KGtchg5eZQj67pP2POz-ltlk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: x2apic/cluster: Make use of lowest priority delivery mode From: Yinghai Lu To: Alexander Gordeev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Suresh Siddha , Cyrill Gorcunov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2253 Lines: 60 On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 01:53:36PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> > +static void >> > +x2apic_cluster_vector_allocation_domain(int cpu, struct cpumask *retmask) >> > +{ >> > + ? ? ? cpumask_copy(retmask, cpu_possible_mask); >> >> why not using per_cpu(cpus_in_cluster, cpu) instead? > > Because it would lead to suboptimal results when updating IRQ affinity: > > int __ioapic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?unsigned int *dest_id) > { > ? ? ? ?struct irq_cfg *cfg = data->chip_data; > > ? ? ? ?if (!cpumask_intersects(mask, cpu_online_mask)) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return -1; > > ? ? ? ?if (assign_irq_vector(data->irq, data->chip_data, mask)) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return -1; > > This call ^^^ will update cfg->domain with the value returned by the call to > apic->vector_allocation_domain(). If per_cpu(cpus_in_cluster, cpu) is returned > as cfg->domain here then all other clusters contained in the 'mask' will not > be taken into consideration by the apic->cpu_mask_to_apicid_and() call below. > > ? ? ? ?cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask); > > ? ? ? ?*dest_id = apic->cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(mask, cfg->domain); > > So we really need to submit all possible CPUs here ^^^ to be able finding the > best/heaviest cluster out of the 'mask'. ok. > > ? ? ? ?return 0; > } > > >> also you may add one per cpu var like x86_cpu_to_logical_cluster_apicid. > > Both cpu_mask_to_apicid() and cpu_mask_to_apicid_and() take a cpumask to > derive the apicid from. Even though we could cache the value of apicid in > 'x86_cpu_to_logical_cluster_apicid' variable, we still would have to unset > CPUs which are not in the requested cpumask. That means scanning through the > cpumask etc -- exactly what the the patch does now. ok, i got it. thanks for the explanation. I was thinking: pick up one for cpumask that user want, and then just use all cpus in that cluster as dest cpus. Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/