From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: topology: add MPIDR-based detection
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:51:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140604155129.GD10775@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140604135431.GL2520@sirena.org.uk>
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:54:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:01:14PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 12:57:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > > All I am saying is, let's wait and see, there is no compelling need to
> > > > use aff3 (and aff2 on non-SMT systems) on current systems for the
>
> > > That's still a kernel patch or having to write DT to get things working
> > > which for the sake of avoiding a couple of shift and or statements just
> > > seems unhelpful. If it was just going to give poor performance that'd
> > > be one thing but it's actively broken.
>
> > What's broken ? Please provide me with an example and I will update the
> > patch.
>
> If some system we encounter in the future is for example a SMT system
> which does use aff3 then until someone actively goes and fixes it by
> writing the DT/ACPI or updating the kernel if there's two threads
> 0,0,0,0 and 0,0,0,1 we'll tell the scheduler they're both 0,0,0 which
> we're not supposed to do.
Ok, so nothing to worry about for now (and as I mentioned that's a "bug"
in arm32 code too, less likely to be triggered, granted).
My question is: is it better to pack affinity levels and "guess" what aff3
(and aff2 on non-SMT) means or add an additional level of hierarchy in the
arm64 topology code (eg book_id - implemented only for s390 to the best
of my knowledge) ?
I personally prefer the latter approach but I think it boils down to
understanding what do we want to provide the scheduler with if we have
a hierarchy that extends beyond "cluster" level.
I will be glad to help you implement it when time comes (and this will also
fix the clusters of clusters DT issue we are facing - ie how to treat them).
Now, I do not think it is a major problem at the moment, merging the
patch I sent will give us more time to discuss how to define the
topology for clusters of clusters, because that's what we are talking
about.
Does it make sense ?
Thanks !
Lorenzo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-04 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-01 17:37 [PATCH] arm64: topology: add MPIDR-based detection Mark Brown
2014-06-03 17:31 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-06-03 21:04 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-04 9:34 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-06-04 11:57 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-04 13:01 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-06-04 13:54 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-04 15:51 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2014-06-04 16:34 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-04 17:10 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-08-18 7:39 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2014-08-18 22:36 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-08-20 4:08 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
2014-08-21 5:15 ` Zi Shen Lim
2014-08-23 10:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-08-28 6:49 ` Ganapatrao Kulkarni
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=20140604155129.GD10775@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).