From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
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 04/14] x86 topology: Add CPUID.1F multi-die/package support
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:43:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKn_-DSW557o4k12381eOVX9o57x6k+ohXV76RNN0rEXXg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cacc41fd-240b-0589-ddd0-5e2dbf6df30d@intel.com>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:46 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/19 10:20 PM, Len Brown wrote:
> > -/* leaf 0xb sub-leaf types */
> > +/* extended topology sub-leaf types */
> > #define INVALID_TYPE 0
> > #define SMT_TYPE 1
> > #define CORE_TYPE 2
> > +#define DIE_TYPE 5
>
> Looking in the SDM, Vol. 3A "8.9.1 Hierarchical Mapping of Shared
> Resources", there are a _couple_ of new levels: Die, Tile and Module.
> But, this patch only covers Dies.
>
> Was there a reason for that?
We have software visible modules and tiles in past products,
and those were discovered by family/model checks, rather than
enumerated. I'm content to let that sleeping dog lay.
We don't have software visible modules or die enumerated with this
mechanism in any current or about to be current products.
When (and if) such products do come along, only then will we know
why software *cares* about die and tiles -- and that will be the time
to add that support. Per below, I think this series cleanly prepares us
for that time.
> I wonder if we'll end up with different (better) infrastructure if we do
> these all at once instead of hacking them in one at a time.
Assuming that "hacking in" is a derogatory term, let me make the case
that this patch series cleanly sets the stage for the future.
old:
thread_siblings: the threads that are in the same core
core_siblings: the threads that are in the same package
This naming scheme assumed that there would never be a topology level
between a core and a package. Though we leave "core_siblings" intact
for legacy SW that depends on it, we mark it depreciated.
new:
core_threads: the threads in the same core
die_threads: the threads in the same die
package_threads: the threads in the same package
So in the future we could always add...
dave_threads: the threads in the same dave
So I think we are ready for whatever the future may throw at us,
while remaining compatible, consistent, and no "hacking in" required.
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-28 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-26 6:19 [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:19 ` [PATCH 01/14] x86 topology: Fix doc typo Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 02/14] topolgy: Simplify cputopology.txt formatting and wording Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 03/14] x86 smpboot: Rename match_die() to match_pkg() Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 04/14] x86 topology: Add CPUID.1F multi-die/package support Len Brown
2019-02-26 19:46 ` Dave Hansen
2019-02-28 15:43 ` Len Brown [this message]
2019-04-05 18:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 05/14] cpu topology: Export die_id Len Brown
2019-03-07 14:45 ` Morten Rasmussen
2019-03-26 18:18 ` Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 06/14] x86 topology: Define topology_logical_die_id() Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 07/14] powercap/intel_rapl: Simplify rapl_find_package() Len Brown
2019-02-26 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-26 18:27 ` Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 08/14] powercap/intel_rapl: Support multi-die/package Len Brown
2019-04-05 18:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-08 1:35 ` Zhang Rui
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 09/14] thermal/x86_pkg_temp_thermal: " Len Brown
2019-04-05 18:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-05 18:39 ` Brown, Len
2019-04-05 18:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 10/14] powercap/intel_rapl: update rapl domain name and debug messages Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 11/14] hwmon/coretemp: Support multi-die/package Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 12/14] topology: Create package_threads sysfs attribute Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 13/14] topology: Create core_threads " Len Brown
2019-02-26 6:20 ` [PATCH 14/14] topology: Create die_threads " Len Brown
2019-02-26 18:51 ` [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-12 19:32 ` Len Brown
2019-02-26 18:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-07 14:59 ` Morten Rasmussen
2019-04-05 18:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-12 19:52 ` Len Brown
2019-04-12 20:40 ` Brice Goglin
2019-02-26 19:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-30 6:50 ` Len Brown
2019-04-30 9:33 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-04-30 18:46 ` Len Brown
2019-04-05 18:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-30 20:55 [PATCH 01/14] x86 topology: Fix doc typo Len Brown
2019-04-30 20:55 ` [PATCH 04/14] x86 topology: Add CPUID.1F multi-die/package support Len Brown
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=CAJvTdKn_-DSW557o4k12381eOVX9o57x6k+ohXV76RNN0rEXXg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--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).