From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86 topology: export die_siblings
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 02:41:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKm3gqY9G6nOVq_a3r0QX4ECcew7Z3cdr1OxDBGRVgUpkg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ceb7549e-6ccb-c6c7-241c-36c6e5c30770@inria.fr>
Hi Brice,
Thank you for your suggestions!
> Patches #4 and #5 are changing the meaning the core_siblings (in the
> past, it always returned all threads in the entire package). All
> existing user-space tools will see each die as a separate package until
> they are updated to read die_siblings too. It only matters for multi-die
> CPUs when running a recent kernel with an old userspace tool, but it may
> still be consider as a sysfs ABI change.
I agree.
Exhibit 1 is the "lscpu" program.
> Worse, things will break again if you ever add tile_siblings for
> CPUID.1f "Tiles". User-space will suddenly see 2 dies of 2 cores instead
> 1 die of 2 tiles of 2 cores.
Agreed, the existing naming scheme is not resilient to future additions.
> I understand that this isn't easy to fix. But I want to make sure people
> are aware of the meaning of this change.
Here is my list of applications that care about the new CPUID leaf
and the concepts of packages and die:
cpuid
lscpu
x86_energy_perf_policy
turbostat
> The proper way to avoid this is to stop having file foo_siblings refer
> to "the container of foo" instead of "foo itself" (because that
> container changes when you add intermediate levels). Rename sysfs files
> like below, and you don't get any breakage anymore when adding
> intermediate levels:
>
> thread_siblings -> core_threads (can we do sysfs alias or symlink to
> keep the old name?)
>
> core_siblings -> die_threads
>
> die_siblings -> package_threads (needs an alias too)
>
> The documentation would also be much easier to read since "die_threads"
> is obviously "human-readable list of cpuX's hardware threads within the
> same die_id". And no need to modify the doc anymore when adding levels :)
I like your idea!
Hm, I think i'd skip creating "die_siblings", as it adds to the
fragile legacy naming scheme
that we want to deprecate.
And although it is ill-defined and has a mis-leading name, I now think
it would be
better to leave "core_siblings" as defined -- a legacy synonym for
"package_threads". Deprecate it, but keep its original definition
until it is removed.
Updated applications would use:
core_threads
die_threads
package_threads
and they'll be future proof if/when we add any new levels.
the legacy thread_siblings and core_siblings will stick around as aliases:
core_threads (thread_siblings)
die_threads
package_threads (core_siblings)
thanks!
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-21 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-19 3:40 [PATCH 0/11] multi-die/package support Len Brown
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86 topology: fix doc typo Len Brown
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 02/11] topolgy: simplify cputopology.txt formatting and wording Len Brown
[not found] ` <9108bd98-e9f4-fee3-80c7-72d540c48291@infradead.org>
2019-02-19 20:33 ` [linux-drivers-review] " Brown, Len
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86 topology: Add CPUID.1F multi-die/package support Len Brown
2019-02-19 16:49 ` Liang, Kan
2019-02-19 19:27 ` Brown, Len
2019-02-20 2:59 ` Like Xu
2019-02-20 6:10 ` Len Brown
2019-02-20 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-20 15:08 ` Len Brown
2019-02-26 13:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-28 15:59 ` Len Brown
2019-02-28 17:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-24 10:04 ` Brice Goglin
2019-02-25 5:31 ` Like Xu
2019-02-25 8:08 ` Brown, Len
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 04/11] cpu topology: export die_id Len Brown
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86 topology: export die_siblings Len Brown
2019-02-19 16:56 ` Liang, Kan
2019-02-19 18:43 ` Brown, Len
2019-02-19 19:33 ` Liang, Kan
2019-02-20 10:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-20 21:52 ` Brice Goglin
2019-02-21 7:41 ` Len Brown [this message]
2019-02-21 8:38 ` Brice Goglin
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86 topology: define topology_unique_die_id() Len Brown
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 07/11] powercap/intel_rapl: simplify rapl_find_package() Len Brown
2019-02-19 9:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 08/11] powercap/intel_rapl: Support multi-die/package Len Brown
2019-02-19 9:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-20 11:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 5:44 ` Len Brown
2019-02-26 4:41 ` Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:55 ` Zhang Rui
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 09/11] powercap/intel_rapl: update rapl domain name and debug messages Len Brown
2019-02-19 9:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 10/11] thermal/x86_pkg_temp_thermal: Support multi-die/package Len Brown
2019-02-19 3:40 ` [PATCH 11/11] hwmon/coretemp: " Len Brown
2019-02-19 16:46 ` Guenter Roeck
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=CAJvTdKm3gqY9G6nOVq_a3r0QX4ECcew7Z3cdr1OxDBGRVgUpkg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=Brice.Goglin@inria.fr \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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).