From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: Add L2 cache topology to ARM Ltd boards/models
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:56:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E1BEC5.5070009@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150212140702.GF1522@leverpostej>
Hi Mark,
On 12/02/15 14:07, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:46:32PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:02:30PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Commit 5d425c18653731af6 ("arm64: kernel: add support for cpu
>>> cache information") adds cacheinfo support for ARM64. Since
>>> there's no architectural way of detecting the cpus that share
>>> particular cache, device tree can be used and the core cacheinfo
>>> already supports the same.
>>
>> This still leaves the possibility that misleading information is
>> exposed for systems from other vendors. I've made a quick attempt
>> to Cc the authors of other arm64 dts here.
>>
>> Given that in the absence of these nodes we can't derive a complete
>> view of the cache hierarchy, shouldn't we only expose the cacheinfo
>> when we have these nodes and can therefore produce correct values?
>
> I'm still rather concerned about exposing misleading cache info in
> this manner. Is there no way we can limit the exposure of this
> information to those cases where we actually have the information?
>
Yes I have a patch to check all the device nodes in the cache hierarchy
before initializing the sysfs. So cacheinfo won't be setup if all the
device nodes aren't found(at-least on architecture like ARM/ARM64 which
depends on DT). I will post it soon, was waiting for a week so that it's
not lost during merge window.
> Do we know if/how this will work for ACPI systems?
>
It should be similar to DT i.e. the hierarchy must be completely
detected through ACPI tables/methods, but I have not thought of
implementation specifics yet.
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi
<Lorenzo.Pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Robert Richter <rrichter-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Radha Mohan Chintakuntla
<rchintakuntla-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
"ksankaran-qTEPVZfXA3Y@public.gmane.org"
<ksankaran-qTEPVZfXA3Y@public.gmane.org>,
Loc Ho <lho-qTEPVZfXA3Y@public.gmane.org>,
Feng Kan <fkan-qTEPVZfXA3Y@public.gmane.org>,
Vinayak Kale <vkale-qTEPVZfXA3Y@public.gmane.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org"
<suravee.suthikulpanit-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
Joel Schopp <Joel.Schopp-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add L2 cache topology to ARM Ltd boards/models
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:56:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E1BEC5.5070009@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150212140702.GF1522@leverpostej>
Hi Mark,
On 12/02/15 14:07, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:46:32PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:02:30PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Commit 5d425c18653731af6 ("arm64: kernel: add support for cpu
>>> cache information") adds cacheinfo support for ARM64. Since
>>> there's no architectural way of detecting the cpus that share
>>> particular cache, device tree can be used and the core cacheinfo
>>> already supports the same.
>>
>> This still leaves the possibility that misleading information is
>> exposed for systems from other vendors. I've made a quick attempt
>> to Cc the authors of other arm64 dts here.
>>
>> Given that in the absence of these nodes we can't derive a complete
>> view of the cache hierarchy, shouldn't we only expose the cacheinfo
>> when we have these nodes and can therefore produce correct values?
>
> I'm still rather concerned about exposing misleading cache info in
> this manner. Is there no way we can limit the exposure of this
> information to those cases where we actually have the information?
>
Yes I have a patch to check all the device nodes in the cache hierarchy
before initializing the sysfs. So cacheinfo won't be setup if all the
device nodes aren't found(at-least on architecture like ARM/ARM64 which
depends on DT). I will post it soon, was waiting for a week so that it's
not lost during merge window.
> Do we know if/how this will work for ACPI systems?
>
It should be similar to DT i.e. the hierarchy must be completely
detected through ACPI tables/methods, but I have not thought of
implementation specifics yet.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-16 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-21 12:02 [PATCH] arm64: Add L2 cache topology to ARM Ltd boards/models Sudeep Holla
2015-01-21 12:02 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-01-21 14:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-21 14:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-21 15:48 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-21 15:48 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-02-24 15:14 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-02-24 15:14 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-02-25 16:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-02-25 16:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-02-25 18:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-02-25 18:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-01-21 16:46 ` Mark Rutland
2015-01-21 16:46 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-12 14:07 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-12 14:07 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-13 2:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-02-13 2:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-02-16 9:56 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2015-02-16 9:56 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-02-16 10:19 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-16 10:19 ` Mark Rutland
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=54E1BEC5.5070009@arm.com \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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.