|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/8] x86/AMD: distinguish compute units from hyper-threads
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:07:42AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Fam17 replaces CUs by HTs, which we should reflect accordingly, even if
> the difference is not very big. The most relevant change (requiring some
> code restructuring) is that the topoext feature no longer means there is
> a valid CU ID.
>
> Take the opportunity and convert wrongly plain int variables in
> set_cpu_sibling_map() to unsigned int.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> @@ -504,17 +504,23 @@ static void amd_get_topology(struct cpui
> u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>
> cpuid(0x8000001e, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> - c->compute_unit_id = ebx & 0xFF;
> c->x86_num_siblings = ((ebx >> 8) & 0x3) + 1;
> +
> + if (c->x86 < 0x17)
> + c->compute_unit_id = ebx & 0xFF;
> + else {
> + c->cpu_core_id = ebx & 0xFF;
> + c->x86_max_cores /= c->x86_num_siblings;
> + }
> }
>
> if (opt_cpu_info)
> printk("CPU %d(%d) -> Processor %d, %s %d\n",
> cpu, c->x86_max_cores, c->phys_proc_id,
> - cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT) ? "Compute Unit" :
> - "Core",
> - cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT) ? c->compute_unit_id :
> - c->cpu_core_id);
> + c->compute_unit_id != INVALID_CUID ? "Compute Unit"
> + : "Core",
> + c->compute_unit_id != INVALID_CUID ?
> c->compute_unit_id
> + : c->cpu_core_id);
> }
>
> static void early_init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
> @@ -236,33 +236,41 @@ static void link_thread_siblings(int cpu
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu2, per_cpu(cpu_core_mask, cpu1));
> }
>
> -static void set_cpu_sibling_map(int cpu)
> +static void set_cpu_sibling_map(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - int i;
> + unsigned int i;
> struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data;
>
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_sibling_setup_map);
>
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, socket_cpumask[cpu_to_socket(cpu)]);
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, per_cpu(cpu_core_mask, cpu));
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, per_cpu(cpu_sibling_mask, cpu));
>
> if ( c[cpu].x86_num_siblings > 1 )
> {
> for_each_cpu ( i, &cpu_sibling_setup_map )
> {
> - if ( cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT) ) {
> - if ( (c[cpu].phys_proc_id == c[i].phys_proc_id) &&
> - (c[cpu].compute_unit_id == c[i].compute_unit_id) )
> + if ( cpu == i || c[cpu].phys_proc_id != c[i].phys_proc_id )
> + continue;
> + if ( c[cpu].compute_unit_id != INVALID_CUID &&
> + c[i].compute_unit_id != INVALID_CUID )
> + {
> + if ( c[cpu].compute_unit_id == c[i].compute_unit_id )
> link_thread_siblings(cpu, i);
> - } else if ( (c[cpu].phys_proc_id == c[i].phys_proc_id) &&
> - (c[cpu].cpu_core_id == c[i].cpu_core_id) ) {
> - link_thread_siblings(cpu, i);
> }
> + else if ( c[cpu].cpu_core_id != XEN_INVALID_CORE_ID &&
> + c[i].cpu_core_id != XEN_INVALID_CORE_ID )
> + {
> + if ( c[cpu].cpu_core_id == c[i].cpu_core_id )
> + link_thread_siblings(cpu, i);
> + }
> + else
> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING
> + "CPU%u: unclear relationship with CPU%u\n",
> + cpu, i);
> }
> }
> - else
> - {
> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, per_cpu(cpu_sibling_mask, cpu));
> - }
>
> if ( c[cpu].x86_max_cores == 1 )
> {
>
>
>
>
Side note: if cpu_core_id isn't the logical cpu, it might be worth
updating the comments in processor.h
Reviewed-by: Brian Woods <brian.woods@xxxxxxx>
--
Brian Woods
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |