linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Ruifeng Zhang <ruifeng.zhang0110@gmail.com>
Cc: linux@armlinux.org.uk, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	mingo@kernel.org, ruifeng.zhang1@unisoc.com,
	nianfu.bai@unisoc.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm: topology: parse the topology from the dt
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:40:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o8eimmyw.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG7+-3OMYVTc+ja9CK+94X8XtKq3hbRb+XOEv7xOeuXgNm0BHQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 13/04/21 14:13, Ruifeng Zhang wrote:
> Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> 于2021年4月12日周一 下午11:33写道:
>> I'm not fluent at all in armv7 (or most aarch32 compat mode stuff), but
>> I couldn't find anything about MPIDR format differences:
>>
>>   DDI 0487G.a G8.2.113
>>   """
>>   AArch32 System register MPIDR bits [31:0] are architecturally mapped to
>>   AArch64 System register MPIDR_EL1[31:0].
>>   """
>>
>> Peeking at some armv7 doc and arm/kernel/topology.c the layout really looks
>> just the same, i.e. for both of them, with your example of:
>
> The cortex-a7 spec DDI0464F 4.3.5
> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0464/f/?lang=en
>

Ah, so that's where the core_id=bit[1:0] comes from. That does still
conform to the MPIDR format, and as you point out below that's being parsed
the same (aff2, aff1, aff0) == mpidr([23:16][15:8][7:0])

> The current arch/arm/kernel/topology code parse the MPIDR with a armv7 format.
> the parse code is:
> void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
> {
>     ...
>     cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>     cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
>     cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
>     ...
> }
>>
>>   core0: 0000000080000000
>>   core1: 0000000080000100
>>   core2: 0000000080000200
>>   ...
>>
>> we'll get:
>>
>>   |       | aff2 | aff1 | aff0 |
>>   |-------+------+------+------|
>>   | Core0 |    0 |    0 |    0 |
>>   | Core1 |    0 |    1 |    0 |
>>   | Core2 |    0 |    2 |    0 |
>>       ...
>>
>> Now, arm64 doesn't fallback to MPIDR for topology information anymore since
>>
>>   3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64: topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")
>>
>> so without DT we would get:
>>   |       | package_id | core_id |
>>   |-------+------------+---------|
>>   | Core0 |          0 |       0 |
>>   | Core1 |          0 |       1 |
>>   | Core2 |          0 |       2 |
>>
>> Whereas with an arm kernel we'll end up parsing MPIDR as:
>>   |       | package_id | core_id |
>>   |-------+------------+---------|
>>   | Core0 |          0 |       0 |
>>   | Core1 |          1 |       0 |
>>   | Core2 |          2 |       0 |
>>
>> Did I get this right? Is this what you're observing?
>
> Yes, this is a problem if an armv8.2 or above cpu is running a 32-bit
> kernel on EL1.


With the above MPIDR(_EL1) values, you would have the same problem in
aarch64 mode on any kernel predating

  3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64: topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")

since all Aff0 values are 0. Arguably those MPIDR(_EL1) values don't
make much sense (cores in the same cluster should have different Aff0
values, unless SMT), but in arm64 that's usually "corrected" by DT.

As you pointed out, arm doesn't currently leverage the cpu-map DT entry. I
don't see any obvious problem with adding support for it, so if you can fix
the capacity issue Dietmar reported, I think we could consider it.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-13 11:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-12  7:08 [PATCH 1/1] arm: topology: parse the topology from the dt Ruifeng Zhang
2021-04-12 11:31 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-04-12 12:20   ` Ruifeng Zhang
2021-04-12 12:40     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-04-13  6:18       ` Ruifeng Zhang
2021-04-12 15:32     ` Valentin Schneider
2021-04-13  6:13       ` Ruifeng Zhang
2021-04-13 11:40         ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-04-13 13:26           ` Ruifeng Zhang
2021-04-14  9:42             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-04-14 11:26               ` Ruifeng Zhang
2021-04-14 13:53                 ` Dietmar Eggemann

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=87o8eimmyw.mognet@arm.com \
    --to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=nianfu.bai@unisoc.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=ruifeng.zhang0110@gmail.com \
    --cc=ruifeng.zhang1@unisoc.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@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 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).