On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 12/13/2017 04:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi >> <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:13:08AM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> First, thanks for taking a look at this. >>>> >>>> On 12/11/2017 07:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 11:23:27 PM CET Jeremy Linton wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The PPTT can be used to determine the groupings of CPU's at >>>>>> given levels in the system. Lets add a few routines to the PPTT >>>>>> parsing code to return a unique id for each unique level in the >>>>>> processor hierarchy. This can then be matched to build >>>>>> thread/core/cluster/die/package/etc mappings for each processing >>>>>> element in the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why can't this be folded into patch [2/9]? >>>> >>>> >>>> It can, and I will be happy squash it. >>>> >>>> It was requested that the topology portion of the parser be split >>>> out back in v3. >>>> >>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg78487.html >>> >>> >>> I asked to split cache/topology since I am not familiar with cache >>> code and Sudeep - who looks after the cache code - won't be able >>> to review this series in time for v4.16. >> >> >> OK, so why do we need it in 4.16? > > > I think its more case of as soon as possible. That is because there are > machines where the topology is completely incorrect due to assumptions the > kernel makes based on registers that aren't defined for that purpose (say > describing which cores are in a physical socket, or LLC's attached to > interconnects or memory controllers). > > This incorrect topology information is reported to things like the kernel > scheduler, which then makes poor scheduling decisions resulting in > sub-optimal system performance. > > This patchset (and ACPI 6.2) clears up a lot of those problems. As long as the ACPI tables are as expected that is, I suppose? Anyway, fair enough, but I don't want to rush it in. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html