linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, ak@linux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Odd performance results
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160713140618.GE7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160713071817.GC13006@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:18:17AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> > > with a total of eight threads.  The "siblings" and "cpu cores" fields in
> > > /proc/cpuinfo should show the same thing.  So I am utterly confused
> > > about what is unexpected here?
> > 
> > Typically threads are enumerated differently on Intel parts. Namely:
> > 
> >	cpu_id = core_id + nr_cores * smt_id
> 
> Yeah, they are 'interleaved' at the thread/core level - I suppose to 'mix' them on 
> OS schedulers that don't know about SMT.
> 
> (Fortunately this interleaving is not done across NUMA domains.)
> 
> > $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/thread_siblings_list
> 
> Btw., this command will print out the mappings in order even on larger systems and 
> shows the CPU # as well:
> 
>  $ grep -i . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/thread_siblings_list | sort -t u -k +3 -n
> 
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/thread_siblings_list:0,60
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/topology/thread_siblings_list:1,61
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/thread_siblings_list:2,62
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/thread_siblings_list:3,63
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/topology/thread_siblings_list:4,64
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/topology/thread_siblings_list:5,65
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/topology/thread_siblings_list:6,66
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/topology/thread_siblings_list:7,67
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/topology/thread_siblings_list:8,68
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/topology/thread_siblings_list:9,69
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/topology/thread_siblings_list:10,70
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/topology/thread_siblings_list:11,71
> ...
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu116/topology/thread_siblings_list:56,116
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu117/topology/thread_siblings_list:57,117
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu118/topology/thread_siblings_list:58,118
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu119/topology/thread_siblings_list:59,119

Here is what that gets me on the x86 test system I usually use:

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/thread_siblings_list:0,32
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/topology/thread_siblings_list:1,33
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/thread_siblings_list:2,34
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/thread_siblings_list:3,35
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/topology/thread_siblings_list:4,36
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/topology/thread_siblings_list:5,37
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/topology/thread_siblings_list:6,38
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/topology/thread_siblings_list:7,39
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/topology/thread_siblings_list:8,40
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/topology/thread_siblings_list:9,41
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/topology/thread_siblings_list:10,42
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/topology/thread_siblings_list:11,43

[ . . . ]

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu56/topology/thread_siblings_list:24,56
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu57/topology/thread_siblings_list:25,57
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu58/topology/thread_siblings_list:26,58
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu59/topology/thread_siblings_list:27,59
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu60/topology/thread_siblings_list:28,60
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu61/topology/thread_siblings_list:29,61
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu62/topology/thread_siblings_list:30,62
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu63/topology/thread_siblings_list:31,63

On my laptop:

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/thread_siblings_list:0-1
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/topology/thread_siblings_list:0-1
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/thread_siblings_list:2-3
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/thread_siblings_list:2-3
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/topology/thread_siblings_list:4-5
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/topology/thread_siblings_list:4-5
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/topology/thread_siblings_list:6-7
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/topology/thread_siblings_list:6-7

> > The ordering Paul has, namely 0,1 for core0,smt{0,1} is not something
> > I've ever seen on an Intel part. AMD otoh does enumerate their CMT stuff
> > like what Paul has.
> 
> That's more the natural 'direct' mapping from CPU internal topology to CPU id: 
> what's close to each other physically is close to each other in the CPU id space 
> as well.

Agreed!

							Thanx, Paul

      parent reply	other threads:[~2016-07-13 14:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-10  4:26 Odd performance results Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-10  5:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-10 14:43   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-12 14:55     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-12 15:05       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-12 17:49         ` H. Peter Anvin
2016-07-12 18:26           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-12 18:51           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-12 19:10             ` [CRM114spam]: " Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2016-07-12 19:59               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-13  7:20                 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-07-13  7:18             ` Ingo Molnar
2016-07-13 12:27               ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2016-07-13 12:33                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-07-13 14:06               ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160713140618.GE7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).