lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/3] s390x: optimization of the check for CPU topology change
From
Date


On 8/3/21 10:57 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>
>
> On 8/3/21 10:42 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>> Now that the PTF instruction is interpreted by the SIE we can optimize
>>> the arch_update_cpu_topology callback to check if there is a real need
>>> to update the topology by using the PTF instruction.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/s390/kernel/topology.c | 3 +++
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c b/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>>> index 26aa2614ee35..741cb447e78e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/topology.c
>>> @@ -322,6 +322,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
>>>       struct device *dev;
>>>       int cpu, rc;
>>> +    if (!ptf(PTF_CHECK))
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +
>>
>> We have a timer which checks if topology changed and then triggers a
>> call to arch_update_cpu_topology() via rebuild_sched_domains().
>> With this change topology changes would get lost.
>
> For my understanding, if PTF check return 0 it means that there are no
> topology changes.
> So they could not get lost.
>
> What did I miss?
>
>
I missed that PTF clears the MCTR... and only one of the two calls will
return 1 while we need both to return 1...


--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-08-03 11:30    [W:0.065 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site