• DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to Phoronix, Ampere’s new CPUs have so many cores that Linux doesn’t support systems when two of Ampere’s 192-core chips (384 total cores) are installed in a single server. For now, the ARM64 Linux kernel only supports systems with 256 cores or less. To fix the issue, Ampere has submitted a patch proposing that the Linux kernel core limit be raised to 512

    If you’re already at 384 cores in a dual-processor setup, isn’t raising the limit to 512 too little? Why not just go for 1024 now that they’re at it, especially since the method they proposed doesn’t increase kernel image memory footprint.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well looking at the patch

      +config NR_CPUS_RANGE_END
      +	int
      +	default 8192 if  SMP && CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
      +	default  512 if  SMP && !CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
      +	default    1 if !SMP
      +
      
      

      It looks like it’s doing and end range of 8192 but with the off stack flag set. And it seems that…

      +	  This is purely to save memory: each supported CPU adds about 8KB
      +	  to the kernel image.
      
      

      Which looks like they’re trying to save memory to avoid TLB stalling on the CPU’s bitmap. I think if the chip maker is indicating that slab allocation is fine for more at the moment (which the patch looks to be coming from Christoph Lameter, who works at Ampere), it’s best to assume they’ve tested it on their end. Or at least I would think so. If they felt that more on the stack was a fine option, I would think that, that’s exactly what they would pitch to the KML. Them saying there’s a need for offstack past 512, I’m guessing there’s a reason and the one I can think of is TLB stalls.

    • LennethAegis@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, they are just going to hit the wall again way too fast. If the limit is 256 or 2^8, they should increase it to 65536 or 2^16. Now that’s a limit that feels safer to leave at for many year to come.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fine point. I assume because they know there is an entire waterfall of shit they don’t want to mess with regarding memory registers for SMP, and they know this is the limit where they can patch and not have to deal with all of that.