Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] arch_topology: Set cluster identifier in each core/thread from /cpu-map

Sudeep Holla
2022-06-17T11:23:46Z

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 13/06/2022 12:17, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:19:36AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2022 12:27, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:08:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 12:22, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Again I completely disagree. Let us look at the problems separately.
> >>> The hardware topology that some of the tools like lscpu and lstopo expects
> >>> what the hardware looks like and not the scheduler's view of the hardware.
> >>> So the topology masks that gets exposed to the user-space needs fixing
> >>> even today. I have reports from various tooling people about the same.
> >>> E.g. Juno getting exposed as dual socket system is utter non-sense.
> >>>
> >>> Yes scheduler uses most of the topology masks as is but that is not a must.
> >>> There are these *group_mask functions that can implement what scheduler
> >>> needs to be fed.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure why the 2 issues are getting mixed up and that is the main
> >>> reason why I jumped into this to make sure the topology masks are
> >>> not tampered based on the way it needs to be used for scheduler.
> >>
> >> I'm all in favor of not mixing up those 2 issues. But I don't understand
> >> why you have to glue them together.
> >>
> >
> > What are you referring as 'glue them together'. As I said this series just
> > address the hardware topology and if there is any impact on sched domains
> > then it is do with alignment with ACPI and DT platform behaviour. I am not
> > adding anything more to glue topology and info needed for sched domains.
>
> You can fix (1) without (2) parsing 1. level cluster nodes as
> cluster_siblings.
>

Technically yes, but I see no point in delaying it as it is considered as
broken with respect to the moment ACPI exposed the correct value and at the
same time resulted in exposing incorrect value in case of DT. I am referring
to the same change that introduced SCHED_CLUSTER. The damage is done and it
needs repairing ASAP.

> > Indeed. But I don't get what you mean by 2 level here. ACPI puts 1st level
>
> cpu_map {
> socket0 {
> cluster0 { <-- 1. level cluster
> cluster0 { <-- 2. level cluster (3 -->)

Oh I had misunderstood this level nomenclature, I refer it as leaf cluster
node which is 2. level cluster in this DT snippet.

> core0 {
>
> };
> core1 {
>
> };
> cluster1 {
> ...
>
> Armv9 L2 complexes: e.g. QC SM8450:
>
> .---------------.
> CPU |0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7|
> +---------------+
> uarch |l l l l m m m b| (so called tri-gear: little, medium, big)
> +---------------+
> L2 | | | | | | | <-- 2. level cluster, Armv9 L2 complexes (<-- 3)

Again before I assume, what exactly <--3 here and in above snippet mean ?

> +---------------+
> L3 |<-- -->|
> +---------------+
> |<-- cluster -->|

I think this is 2 level cluster or only cluster in this system w.r.t hardware.
So lets not confuse with multi-level if not necessary.

> +---------------+
> |<-- DSU -->|
> '---------------'
>
> Only if we map (i) into cluster_sibling, we get the same hardware
> representation (for the task scheduler) for ACPI (4) and DT (5) systems.
>

What is (i) above ?

> (4) examples:
>
> Kunpeng920 - 24 CPUs sharing LLC (cpu_coregroup_mask()), 4 CPUs sharing
> L3-tag (cpu_clustergroup_mask()).
>

Again decouple cache info and cluster info from h/w, you have all the info.
You can couple them together if that helps when you feed sched_domains.

> X86 Jacobsville - 24 CPUs sharing LLC (L3), 4 CPUs sharing L2
>
> Armv9 L2 complexes: e.g. QC SM8450 - 8 CPUs sharing LLC (L3), (for A510
> (little CPUs)) 2 CPUs sharing L2

[...]

> > And yes lstopo doesn't read cluster IDs. But we expose them in ACPI system
> > and not on DT which was my main point.
>
> Understood. But a Kunpeng920 `cluster_cpus_list` file would contain
> logically different information than a Juno `cluster_cpus_list` file.
>

And why is that ?

> Kunpeng920 `cluster_cpus_list` contain 4 CPUs sharing L3-tag (less than
> LLC) whereas Juno cluster_cpus_list contain 2 or 4 CPUs (which is LLC).
>

Correct because that is how the hardware clusters are designed on those SoC.
Cache topology is different.

> I think key is to agree what a CLUSTER actually represent and especially
> in case when `the level of topology above CPUs` is congruent with LLC
> boundaries. Because my feeling is that people didn't pay attention to
> this detail when they introduced SCHED_CONFIG_CLUSTER. A related issue
> is the Ampere Altra hack in cpu_coregroup_mask().
>

The is defined by hardware and DT/ACPI has bindings for it. We can't redefine
CLUSTER in a way that breaks those definitions. Again cluster is part of CPU
topology and cache topology can be different and need not be congruent with
CPU topology in some ways, Ofcourse they are in some other ways but there will
be no single line of alignment across SoCs which is quite evident with the
examples you have listed. Just add Ampere Altra to make it more fun.

> > As pointed out earlier, have you checked ACPI on Juno and with
> > CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER ? If the behaviour with my series on DT and ACPI
> > differs, then it is an issue. But AFAIU, it doesn't and that is my main
> > argument. You are just assuming what we have on Juno with DT is correct
> > which may be w.r.t to scheduler but definitely not with respect to the
> > hardware topology exposed to the users. So my aim is to get that fixed.
>
> I never run Juno w/ ACPI. Are you saying that
> find_acpi_cpu_topology_cluster() returns cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_id's
> which match the `1. level cluster nodes`?
>

Again I am totally confused as why this is now 1.level cluster where as above
SDM was 2.level cluster. Both SoCs have only 1 level of cluster. While SDM
has 1 DSU cluster, Juno has 2 clusters.

> The function header of find_acpi_cpu_topology_cluster() says that `...
> the cluster, if present is the level of topology above CPUs. ...`.
>

Exactly and that's how sysfs is also defined and we can't go back and change
that now. I don't see any issue TBH.

> From this perspective I can see your point. But this is then still
> clearly poorly designed.

Not really as per the definition.

> How would we ever support CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER
> in DT when it really (potentially) would bring a benefit (i.e. in the
> Armv9 L2-complex case) and not only create trouble for the task
> scheduler to setup its domains correctly?

Indeed, that is the next problem once we get all these aligned across
DT and ACPI. They have diverged and I prefer not to allow that anymore
by adding more divergence e.g. to support Armv9 L2-complex case. Please
consider that on top of these, I am not addressing that at the moment.
In fact I am not addressing any sched_domain topics or issues. I have made
that clear 😉.

> Also in case we stick to
> setting CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER=1 by default, CLS should be the default LLC
> sched domain and MC the exceptional one. Just to respect the way how the
> task scheduler removes not useful domains today.
>

Fix the cpu_clustergroup_mask or any other cpu_*group_mask as per your
taste. The topology masks are just inputs to these and will not be changed
or diverged for these reasons. Sorry if that is not helpful, but that is the
reality with sysfs exposed to the user-space.

> > If you are not happy with that, then how can be be happy with what is the
> > current behaviour on ACPI + and - CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER. I haven't got
> > your opinion yet on that matter.
>
> I guess it's clear now that ACPI + CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER with ``the level
> of topology above CPUs` is congruent with LLC` creates trouble to the
> scheduler. So I don't see why we should replicate this for DT. Let's
> discuss further tomorrow in person.

I see it differently. If that creates a trouble, fix that and you will not
have any issues with DT too.

--
Regards,
Sudeep