All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"moderated list:ARM64 PORT \(AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE\)"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v1 0/4] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:04:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207150432.GB4100@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181207134509.GA5913@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:45:21PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:28:16PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in
> > much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can
> > easily adopt this binding to represent it's own CPU topology.
> > Thus, both cpu-map DT binding and topology parsing code can be
> > moved to a common location so that RISC-V or any other
> > architecture can leverage that.
> >
> > The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be
> > found in [1].
> >
> > arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common
> > code. I have not introduced any functional changes in the moved
> > code. The only downside in this approach is that the capacity
> > code will be executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit
> > immediately after not able to find the appropriate DT node. If
> > the overhead is considered too much, we can always compile out
> > capacity related functions under a different config for the
> > architectures that do not support them.
> >
> > The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for
> > ARM64 & x86.
>
> The cpu-map bindings are used for arch/arm too, and so is
> arch_topology.c. In fact, it was introduced to allow code-sharing
> between arm and arm64. Applying patch three breaks arm.
>

Ah right. Though I remember the whole point of moving these to arch_topology
was to share between ARM and ARM64, I completely forgot to check the
impact of this for ARM platforms.

> Moving the DT parsing to arch_topology.c we have to unify all three
> architectures. Be aware that arm and arm64 have some differences in how
> they detect cpu capacities. I think we might have to look at the split
> of code between arch/* and arch_topology.c again :-/
>

Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree and apologies for
forgetting about arm32.

Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"moderated list:ARM64 PORT \(AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE\)"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v1 0/4] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:04:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207150432.GB4100@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181207134509.GA5913@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:45:21PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:28:16PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in
> > much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can
> > easily adopt this binding to represent it's own CPU topology.
> > Thus, both cpu-map DT binding and topology parsing code can be
> > moved to a common location so that RISC-V or any other
> > architecture can leverage that.
> >
> > The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be
> > found in [1].
> >
> > arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common
> > code. I have not introduced any functional changes in the moved
> > code. The only downside in this approach is that the capacity
> > code will be executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit
> > immediately after not able to find the appropriate DT node. If
> > the overhead is considered too much, we can always compile out
> > capacity related functions under a different config for the
> > architectures that do not support them.
> >
> > The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for
> > ARM64 & x86.
>
> The cpu-map bindings are used for arch/arm too, and so is
> arch_topology.c. In fact, it was introduced to allow code-sharing
> between arm and arm64. Applying patch three breaks arm.
>

Ah right. Though I remember the whole point of moving these to arch_topology
was to share between ARM and ARM64, I completely forgot to check the
impact of this for ARM platforms.

> Moving the DT parsing to arch_topology.c we have to unify all three
> architectures. Be aware that arm and arm64 have some differences in how
> they detect cpu capacities. I think we might have to look at the split
> of code between arch/* and arch_topology.c again :-/
>

Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree and apologies for
forgetting about arm32.

Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	"moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v1 0/4] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:04:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207150432.GB4100@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181207134509.GA5913@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:45:21PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:28:16PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in
> > much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can
> > easily adopt this binding to represent it's own CPU topology.
> > Thus, both cpu-map DT binding and topology parsing code can be
> > moved to a common location so that RISC-V or any other
> > architecture can leverage that.
> >
> > The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be
> > found in [1].
> >
> > arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common
> > code. I have not introduced any functional changes in the moved
> > code. The only downside in this approach is that the capacity
> > code will be executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit
> > immediately after not able to find the appropriate DT node. If
> > the overhead is considered too much, we can always compile out
> > capacity related functions under a different config for the
> > architectures that do not support them.
> >
> > The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for
> > ARM64 & x86.
>
> The cpu-map bindings are used for arch/arm too, and so is
> arch_topology.c. In fact, it was introduced to allow code-sharing
> between arm and arm64. Applying patch three breaks arm.
>

Ah right. Though I remember the whole point of moving these to arch_topology
was to share between ARM and ARM64, I completely forgot to check the
impact of this for ARM platforms.

> Moving the DT parsing to arch_topology.c we have to unify all three
> architectures. Be aware that arm and arm64 have some differences in how
> they detect cpu capacities. I think we might have to look at the split
> of code between arch/* and arch_topology.c again :-/
>

Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree and apologies for
forgetting about arm32.

Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	"moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v1 0/4] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:04:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207150432.GB4100@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181207134509.GA5913@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:45:21PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:28:16PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in
> > much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can
> > easily adopt this binding to represent it's own CPU topology.
> > Thus, both cpu-map DT binding and topology parsing code can be
> > moved to a common location so that RISC-V or any other
> > architecture can leverage that.
> >
> > The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be
> > found in [1].
> >
> > arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common
> > code. I have not introduced any functional changes in the moved
> > code. The only downside in this approach is that the capacity
> > code will be executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit
> > immediately after not able to find the appropriate DT node. If
> > the overhead is considered too much, we can always compile out
> > capacity related functions under a different config for the
> > architectures that do not support them.
> >
> > The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for
> > ARM64 & x86.
>
> The cpu-map bindings are used for arch/arm too, and so is
> arch_topology.c. In fact, it was introduced to allow code-sharing
> between arm and arm64. Applying patch three breaks arm.
>

Ah right. Though I remember the whole point of moving these to arch_topology
was to share between ARM and ARM64, I completely forgot to check the
impact of this for ARM platforms.

> Moving the DT parsing to arch_topology.c we have to unify all three
> architectures. Be aware that arm and arm64 have some differences in how
> they detect cpu capacities. I think we might have to look at the split
> of code between arch/* and arch_topology.c again :-/
>

Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree and apologies for
forgetting about arm32.

Regards,
Sudeep

  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-07 15:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-29 23:28 [RFT PATCH v1 0/4] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28 ` [RFT PATCH v1 1/4] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 16:46   ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:46     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:46     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:46     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-12  2:18   ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:18     ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:18     ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:18     ` Rob Herring
2018-11-29 23:28 ` [RFT PATCH v1 2/4] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 16:55   ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:55     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:55     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:55     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:23     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:23       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:23       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:23       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:33       ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:33         ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:33         ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:33         ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:40         ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:40           ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:40           ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:40           ` Atish Patra
2018-12-12  2:21       ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:21         ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:21         ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:21         ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:31   ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:31     ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:31     ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12  2:31     ` Rob Herring
2018-12-12 18:23     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-12 18:23       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-12 18:23       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-12 18:23       ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28 ` [RFT PATCH v1 3/4] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 16:58   ` Will Deacon
2018-12-03 16:58     ` Will Deacon
2018-12-03 16:58     ` Will Deacon
2018-12-03 16:58     ` Will Deacon
2018-12-03 17:12     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:12       ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:12       ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:12       ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-04  9:50       ` Juri Lelli
2018-12-04  9:50         ` Juri Lelli
2018-12-04  9:50         ` Juri Lelli
2018-12-04  9:50         ` Juri Lelli
2018-12-03 17:16   ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:16     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:16     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:16     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 17:31     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:31       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:31       ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 17:31       ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28 ` [RFT PATCH v1 4/4] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-29 23:28   ` Atish Patra
2018-12-03 16:59   ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:59     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:59     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-03 16:59     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-05 17:53 ` [RFT PATCH v1 0/4] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Jeffrey Hugo
2018-12-05 17:53   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-12-05 17:53   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-12-05 17:53   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-12-11  0:26   ` Atish Patra
2018-12-11  0:26     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-11  0:26     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-11  0:26     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-07 13:45 ` Morten Rasmussen
2018-12-07 13:45   ` Morten Rasmussen
2018-12-07 13:45   ` Morten Rasmussen
2018-12-07 13:45   ` Morten Rasmussen
2018-12-07 15:04   ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2018-12-07 15:04     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-07 15:04     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-07 15:04     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-12-11  0:11   ` Atish Patra
2018-12-11  0:11     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-11  0:11     ` Atish Patra
2018-12-11  0:11     ` Atish Patra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181207150432.GB4100@e107155-lin \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dmitriy@oss-tech.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=palmer@sifive.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.