On 14 December 2012 08:45, Mike Galbraith bitbucket@online.de wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
> > Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such system ? > and how many sched_domain level have you ?
it is general X86 domain configuration. with 4 levels, sibling/core/cpu/numa.
CPU is a bug that slipped into domain degeneration. You should have SIBLING/MC/NUMA (chasing that down is on todo).
Maybe. the CPU/NUMA is different on domain flags, CPU has SD_PREFER_SIBLING.
What I noticed during (an unrelated) bisection on a 40 core box was domains going from so..
3.4.0-bisect (virgin) [ 5.056214] CPU0 attaching sched-domain: [ 5.065009] domain 0: span 0,32 level SIBLING [ 5.075011] groups: 0 (cpu_power = 589) 32 (cpu_power = 589) [ 5.088381] domain 1: span 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76 level MC [ 5.107669] groups: 0,32 (cpu_power = 1178) 4,36 (cpu_power = 1178) 8,40 (cpu_power = 1178) 12,44 (cpu_power = 1178) 16,48 (cpu_power = 1177) 20,52 (cpu_power = 1178) 24,56 (cpu_power = 1177) 28,60 (cpu_power = 1177) 64,72 (cpu_power = 1176) 68,76 (cpu_power = 1176) [ 5.162115] domain 2: span 0-79 level NODE [ 5.171927] groups: 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76 (cpu_power = 11773) 1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41,45,49,53,57,61,65,69,73,77 (cpu_power = 11772) 2,6,10,14,18,22,26,30,34,38,42,46,50,54,58,62,66,70,74,78 (cpu_power = 11773) 3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,59,63,67,71,75,79 (cpu_power = 11770)
..to so, which looks a little bent. CPU and MC have identical spans, so CPU should have gone away, as it used to do.
3.6.0-bisect (virgin) [ 3.978338] CPU0 attaching sched-domain: [ 3.987125] domain 0: span 0,32 level SIBLING [ 3.997125] groups: 0 (cpu_power = 588) 32 (cpu_power = 589) [ 4.010477] domain 1: span 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76 level MC [ 4.029748] groups: 0,32 (cpu_power = 1177) 4,36 (cpu_power = 1177) 8,40 (cpu_power = 1178) 12,44 (cpu_power = 1178) 16,48 (cpu_power = 1178) 20,52 (cpu_power = 1178) 24,56 (cpu_power = 1178) 28,60 (cpu_power = 1178) 64,72 (cpu_power = 1178) 68,76 (cpu_power = 1177) [ 4.084143] domain 2: span 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76 level CPU [ 4.103796] groups: 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76 (cpu_power = 11777) [ 4.124373] domain 3: span 0-79 level NUMA [ 4.134369] groups: 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76 (cpu_power = 11777) 1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41,45,49,53,57,61,65,69,73,77 (cpu_power = 11778) 2,6,10,14,18,22,26,30,34,38,42,46,50,54,58,62,66,70,74 ,78 (cpu_power = 11778) 3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,59,63,67,71,75,79 (cpu_power = 11780)
Thanks. that's an interesting example of a numa topology
For your sched_domain difference, On 3.4, SD_PREFER_SIBLING was set for both MC and CPU level thanks to sd_balance_for_mc_power and sd_balance_for_package_power On 3.6, SD_PREFER_SIBLING is only set for CPU level and this flag difference with MC level prevents the destruction of CPU sched_domain during the degeneration
We may need to set SD_PREFER_SIBLING for MC level
Vincent
-Mike