From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel List <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
Brian Woods <brian.woods@amd.com>,
SuraveeSuthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: AMD EPYC Topology problems
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 13:56:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181209125648.GA15262@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e392fcd-4829-afe4-6f36-73d5cf03ee7c@citrix.com>
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:23:49AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Right, but the documentation also states that where it says package, it
> means "Node" in AMD's terminology, and the information in CPUID is per
> socket, not per node.
>
> My point is that the numbers ending up in cpuinfo_x86 don't match the
> semantics described by the documentation.
Ok, I think I know where the issue stems from:
definition of "package" in the AMD docs != definition of "package" in Documentation/x86/topology.txt
AMD's is "Processor: A package containing one or more Nodes." whereas
ours is:
"Packages contain a number of cores plus shared resources, e.g. DRAM
controller, shared caches etc."
and physical sockets we don't care about because they're not relevant to
sw.
Yeah, lemme discuss this with tglx to refresh what we were thinking then. :)
Stay tuned.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-09 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <7369db0c-4917-0807-eef4-cba5e5ae0d4e@citrix.com>
2018-12-03 11:13 ` AMD EPYC Topology problems Borislav Petkov
2018-12-03 11:23 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-12-09 12:56 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-12-10 21:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20181209125648.GA15262@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=brian.woods@amd.com \
--cc=brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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).