Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Credit2: fix per-socket runqueue setup

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/02/2014 05:46 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Me neither. BTW, on baremetal, here's what I see:
> root@tg03:~# numactl --hardware
> available: 2 nodes (0-1)
> node 0 cpus: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
> node 0 size: 18432 MB
> node 0 free: 17927 MB
> node 1 cpus: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
> node 1 size: 18419 MB
> node 1 free: 17926 MB
> node distances:
> node   0   1
>    0:  10  20
>    1:  20  10
>
> Also:
> root@tg03:~# for i in `seq 0 23`;do echo "CPU$i is on socket `cat 
> /sys/bus/cpu/devices/cpu$i/topology/physical_package_id`";done
> CPU0 is on socket 1
> CPU1 is on socket 0
> CPU2 is on socket 1
> CPU3 is on socket 0
> CPU4 is on socket 1
> CPU5 is on socket 0
> CPU6 is on socket 1
> CPU7 is on socket 0
> CPU8 is on socket 1
> CPU9 is on socket 0
> CPU10 is on socket 1
> CPU11 is on socket 0
> CPU12 is on socket 1
> CPU13 is on socket 0
> CPU14 is on socket 1
> CPU15 is on socket 0
> CPU16 is on socket 1
> CPU17 is on socket 0
> CPU18 is on socket 1
> CPU19 is on socket 0
> CPU20 is on socket 1
> CPU21 is on socket 0
> CPU22 is on socket 1
> CPU23 is on socket 0
>
> I've noticed this before, but, TBH, I never dug the cause of the
> discrepancy between us and Linux.
I remember at some point Xen purposely re-enumerating the cpu numbers so 
that they would have a more sensible arrangement -- i.e., you could 
expect logical cpus on the same thread / core / socket to be grouped 
together consecutively.
As you can see here though, cpu 0 is still on socket 1 (which is 
probably why Xen keeps cpu 0 on socket 1 in its re-enumertation).
 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel