linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Improve load balancing on AMD EPYC
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:24:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190624142420.GC2978@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619213437.GA6909@codeblueprint.co.uk>

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:34:37PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun, at 02:33:18PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:43:19AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > This works for me under all my tests. Thoughts?
> > > 
> > > --->8---
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > index 80a405c2048a..4db4e9e7654b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/sched.h>
> > >  #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
> > >  #include <linux/random.h>
> > > +#include <linux/topology.h>
> > >  #include <asm/processor.h>
> > >  #include <asm/apic.h>
> > >  #include <asm/cacheinfo.h>
> > > @@ -824,6 +825,8 @@ static void init_amd_zn(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > >  {
> > >  	set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_ZEN);
> > >  
> > 
> > I'm thinking this deserves a comment. Traditionally the SLIT table held
> > relative memory latency. So where the identity is 10, 16 would indicate
> > 1.6 times local latency and 32 would be 3.2 times local.
> > 
> > Now, even very early on BIOS monkeys went about their business and put
> > in random values in an attempt to 'tune' the system based on how
> > $random-os behaved, which is all sorts of fu^Wwrong.
> > 
> > Now, I suppose my question is; is that 32 Zen puts in an actual relative
> > memory latency metric, or a random value we somehow have to deal with.
> > And can we pretty please describe the whole sordid story behind this
> > 'tunable' somewhere?
> 
> This is one for the AMD folks. I don't know if the memory latency
> really is 3.2 times or not, only that that's the value in all the Zen
> machines I have access to. Even this 2-socket one:
> 
> node distances:
> node   0   1 
>   0:  10  32 
>   1:  32  10 
> 
> Tom, Suravee?

Do not consider this an authorative response but based on what I know
of the physical topology, it is not unreasonable to use 32 in the SLIT
table. There is a small latency when accessing another die on the same
socket (details are generation specific). It's not quite a local access
but it's not as much as a traditional remote access either (hence 16 being
the base unit for another die to hint that it's not quite local but not
quite remote either). 32 is based on accessing a die on a remote socket
based on the expected performance and latency of the interconnect.

To the best of my knowledge, the magic numbers are reflective of the real
topology and not just a gamification of the numbers for a random OS. If
anything, the fact that there is a load balancing issue on Linux would
indicate that they were not picking random numbers for Linux at least :P

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-24 14:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-05 15:59 Matt Fleming
2019-06-05 18:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-10 21:26   ` Matt Fleming
2019-06-11 17:22     ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-06-18 10:43       ` Matt Fleming
2019-06-18 12:33         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-19 21:34           ` Matt Fleming
2019-06-24 14:24             ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2019-06-26 21:18               ` Suthikulpanit, Suravee
2019-06-28 15:15                 ` Matt Fleming
2019-07-22 14:11                   ` Suthikulpanit, Suravee

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=20190624142420.GC2978@techsingularity.net \
    --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com \
    --cc=Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Improve load balancing on AMD EPYC' \
    /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

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).