News: 0001478788

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Intel Sub-NUMA Clustering Will Stop Clashing With Resource Director On Linux 6.11+

([Intel] 5 Hours Ago SNC + RDT)


For the past year and a half Intel engineers have been working on Linux kernel improvements for [1]Sub-NUMA Clustering (SNC) in the presence of Resource Director Technology (RDT) . Intel has been advising its customers not to use Sub-NUMA Clustering when making use of Resource Director Technology since [2]these features would effectively fight eachother . Well, with the Linux 6.11 kernel that's finally being addressed.

SNC allows partitioning the CPU cores / L3 cache / memory into multiple NUMA domains and can help enhance performance for NUMA-optimized workloads. Intel RDT meanwhile provides for monitoring and greater controls over resources around the last level cache handling and memory bandwidth use. These two features would collide and thus Intel has recommended both aren't engaged concurrently. After [3]many rounds of patch review , SNC + RDT together should behave with code now submitted for the Linux 6.11 kernel.

The [4]x86/cache pull request was submitted from tip/tip.git to the mainline kernel today. As explained in that pull request:

"Enable Sub-NUMA clustering to work with resource control on Intel by teaching resctrl to handle scopes due to the clustering which partitions the L3 cache into sets. Modify and extend the subsystem to handle such scopes properly"

So now those using Intel servers can enjoy both Sub-NUMA Clustering and Resource Director Technology for optimizing performance without the features clashing.



[1] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-resctrl-Sub-NUMA-Cluster

[2] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-SNT-RDT-Fixing-Up

[3] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-SNC-With-RDT-Linux-v19

[4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240716065458.GAZpYZQhh0PBItpD1k@fat_crate.local/



npwx

V1tol

If for every rule there is an exception, then we have established that there
is an exception to every rule. If we accept "For every rule there is an
exception" as a rule, then we must concede that there may not be an exception
after all, since the rule states that there is always the possibility of
exception, and if we follow it to its logical end we must agree that there
can be an exception to the rule that for every rule there is an exception.
-- Bill Boquist