[patch 00/37] cpu/hotplug, x86: Reworked parallel CPU bringup

[Thomas Gleixner]

Michael!

On Thu, Apr 27 2023 at 14:48, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 4:44 PM
>
> I smoke-tested several Linux guest configurations running on Hyper-V,
> using the "kernel/git/tglx/devel.git hotplug" tree as updated on April 26th.
> No functional issues, but encountered one cosmetic issue (details below).
>
> Configurations tested:
> *  16 vCPUs and 32 vCPUs
> *  1 NUMA node and 2 NUMA nodes
> *  Parallel bring-up enabled and disabled via kernel boot line
> *  "Normal" VMs and SEV-SNP VMs running with a paravisor on Hyper-V.
>     This config can use parallel bring-up because most of the SNP-ness is
>     hidden in the paravisor.  I was glad to see this work properly.
>
> There's not much difference in performance with and without parallel
> bring-up on the 32 vCPU VM.   Without parallel, the time is about 26
> milliseconds.  With parallel, it's about 24 ms.   So bring-up is already
> fast in the virtual environment.

Depends on the environment :)

> The cosmetic issue is in the dmesg log, and arises because Hyper-V
> enumerates SMT CPUs differently from many other environments.  In
> a Hyper-V guest, the SMT threads in a core are numbered as <even, odd>
> pairs.  Guest CPUs #0 & #1 are SMT threads in core, as are #2 & #3, etc.  With
> parallel bring-up, here's the dmesg output:
>
> [    0.444345] smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
> [    0.445139] .... node  #0, CPUs:    #2  #4  #6  #8 #10 #12 #14 #16 #18 #20 #22 #24 #26 #28 #30
> [    0.454112] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [    0.456035]       #1  #3  #5  #7  #9 #11 #13 #15 #17 #19 #21 #23 #25 #27 #29 #31
> [    0.466120] smp: Brought up 1 node, 32 CPUs
> [    0.467036] smpboot: Max logical packages: 1
> [    0.468035] smpboot: Total of 32 processors activated (153240.06 BogoMIPS)
>
> The function announce_cpu() is specifically testing for CPU #1 to output the
> "Booting SMP configuration" message.  In a Hyper-V guest, CPU #1 is the second
> SMT thread in a core, so it isn't started until all the even-numbered CPUs are
> started.

Ah. Didn't notice that because SMT siblings are usually enumerated after
all primary ones in ACPI.

> I don't know if this cosmetic issue is worth fixing, but I thought I'd point it out.

That's trivial enough to fix. I'll amend the topmost patch before
posting V2.

Thanks for giving it a ride!

       tglx