On 06/02/25 14:40, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> What topology_span_sane() does is, it iterates over all the CPUs at a
> given topology level and makes sure that the cpumask for a CPU at
> that domain is same as the cpumask of every other CPU set on that mask
> for that topology level.
>
> If two CPUs are set on a mask, they should have the same mask. If CPUs
> are not set on each other's mask, the masks should be disjoint.
>
> On x86, the way set_cpu_sibling_map() works, CPUs are set on each other's
> shared masks iff match_*() returns true:
>
> o For SMT, this means:
>
> - If X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT is set:
> - pkg_id must match.
> - die_id must match.
> - amd_node_id must match.
> - llc_id must match.
> - Either core_id or cu_id must match. (*)
> - NUMA nodes must match.
>
> - If !X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT:
> - pkg_id must match.
> - die_id must match.
> - core_id must match.
> - NUMA nodes must match.
>
> o For CLUSTER this means:
>
> - If l2c_id is not populated (== BAD_APICID)
> - Same conditions as SMT.
>
> - If l2c_id is populated (!= BAD_APICID)
> - l2c_id must match.
> - NUMA nodes must match.
>
> o For MC it means:
>
> - llc_id must be populated (!= BAD_APICID) and must match.
> - If INTEL_SNC: pkg_id must match.
> - If !INTEL_SNC: NUMA nodes must match.
>
> o For PKG domain:
>
> - Inserted only if !x86_has_numa_in_package.
> - CPUs should be in same NUMA node.
>
> All in all, other that the one (*) decision point, everything else has
> to strictly match for CPUs to be set in each other's CPU mask. And if
> they match with one CPU, they should match will all other CPUs in mask
> and it they mismatch with one, they should mismatch with all leading
> to link_mask() never being called.
>
Nice summary, thanks for that - I'm not that familiar with the x86 topology
faff.
> This is why I think that the topology_span_sane() check is redundant
> when the x86 bits have already ensured masks cannot overlap in all
> cases except for potentially in the (*) case.
>
> So circling back to my original question around "SDTL_ARCH_VERIFIED",
> would folks be okay to an early bailout from topology_span_sane() on:
>
> if (!sched_debug() && (tl->flags & SDTL_ARCH_VERIFIED))
> return;
>
> and more importantly, do folks care enough about topology_span_sane()
> to have it run on other architectures and not just have it guarded
> behind just "sched_debug()" which starts off as false by default?
>
If/when possible I prefer to have sanity checks run unconditionally, as
long as they don't noticeably impact runtime. Unfortunately this does show
up in the boot time, though Steve had a promising improvement for that.
Anyway, if someone gets one of those hangs on a
do { } while (group != sd->groups)
they'll quickly turn on sched_verbose (or be told to) and the sanity check
will holler at them, so I'm not entirely against it.
> (Sorry for the long answer explaining my thought process.)
>
>>
>> That I can't remember, sorry :/
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> Prateek
