linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com>
To: <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	<palmer@rivosinc.com>, <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	<sudeep.holla@arm.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<will@kernel.org>, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	<rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: <Daire.McNamara@microchip.com>, <Conor.Dooley@microchip.com>,
	<niklas.cassel@wdc.com>, <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	<geert@linux-m68k.org>, <zong.li@sifive.com>, <kernel@esmil.dk>,
	<hahnjo@hahnjo.de>, <guoren@kernel.org>, <anup@brainfault.org>,
	<atishp@atishpatra.org>, <heiko@sntech.de>,
	<philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>, <robh@kernel.org>, <maz@kernel.org>,
	<viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 20:45:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fb8534d9-baaa-2643-5119-602dfa5de758@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220708203342.256459-2-mail@conchuod.ie>



On 08/07/2022 21:33, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> arm64's method of defining a default cpu topology requires only minimal
> changes to apply to RISC-V also. The current arm64 implementation exits
> early in a uniprocessor configuration by reading MPIDR & claiming that
> uniprocessor can rely on the default values.
> 
> This is appears to be a hangover from prior to '3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64:
> topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")', because the
> current code just assigns default values for multiprocessor systems.
> 
> With the MPIDR references removed, store_cpu_topolgy() can be moved to
> the common arch_topology code.
> 
> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 40 ------------------------------------
>  drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> index 869ffc4d4484..7889a00f5487 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -22,46 +22,6 @@
>  #include <asm/cputype.h>
>  #include <asm/topology.h>
>  
> -void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
> -{
> -	struct cpu_topology *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
> -	u64 mpidr;
> -
> -	if (cpuid_topo->package_id != -1)
> -		goto topology_populated;
> -
> -	mpidr = read_cpuid_mpidr();
> -
> -	/* Uniprocessor systems can rely on default topology values */
> -	if (mpidr & MPIDR_UP_BITMASK)
> -		return;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * This would be the place to create cpu topology based on MPIDR.
> -	 *
> -	 * However, it cannot be trusted to depict the actual topology; some
> -	 * pieces of the architecture enforce an artificial cap on Aff0 values
> -	 * (e.g. GICv3's ICC_SGI1R_EL1 limits it to 15), leading to an
> -	 * artificial cycling of Aff1, Aff2 and Aff3 values. IOW, these end up
> -	 * having absolutely no relationship to the actual underlying system
> -	 * topology, and cannot be reasonably used as core / package ID.
> -	 *
> -	 * If the MT bit is set, Aff0 *could* be used to define a thread ID, but
> -	 * we still wouldn't be able to obtain a sane core ID. This means we
> -	 * need to entirely ignore MPIDR for any topology deduction.
> -	 */
> -	cpuid_topo->thread_id  = -1;
> -	cpuid_topo->core_id    = cpuid;
> -	cpuid_topo->package_id = cpu_to_node(cpuid);
> -
> -	pr_debug("CPU%u: cluster %d core %d thread %d mpidr %#016llx\n",
> -		 cpuid, cpuid_topo->package_id, cpuid_topo->core_id,
> -		 cpuid_topo->thread_id, mpidr);
> -
> -topology_populated:
> -	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
> -}
> -
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>  static bool __init acpi_cpu_is_threaded(int cpu)
>  {
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index 441e14ac33a4..07e84c6ac5c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -765,6 +765,25 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +void __weak store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)

Ahh crap, I forgot to remove the __weak.
I won't immediately respin since it is minor. I've pushed it (without
the __weak) to https://git.kernel.org/conor/h/arch-topo so it'll get
the lkp coverage.

Thanks,
Conor.

> +{
> +	struct cpu_topology *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
> +
> +	if (cpuid_topo->package_id != -1)
> +		goto topology_populated;
> +
> +	cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
> +	cpuid_topo->core_id = cpuid;
> +	cpuid_topo->package_id = cpu_to_node(cpuid);
> +
> +	pr_debug("CPU%u: package %d core %d thread %d\n",
> +		 cpuid, cpuid_topo->package_id, cpuid_topo->core_id,
> +		 cpuid_topo->thread_id);
> +
> +topology_populated:
> +	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
> +}
> +
>  static void clear_cpu_topology(int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-08 20:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-08 20:33 [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix RISC-V's arch-topology reporting Conor Dooley
2022-07-08 20:33 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code Conor Dooley
2022-07-08 20:45   ` Conor.Dooley [this message]
2022-07-09 12:58     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-09 19:50       ` Russell King (Oracle)
2022-07-11 10:02       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 10:24         ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-08 20:33 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv: topology: fix default topology reporting Conor Dooley

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=fb8534d9-baaa-2643-5119-602dfa5de758@microchip.com \
    --to=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=Brice.Goglin@inria.fr \
    --cc=Daire.McNamara@microchip.com \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=guoren@kernel.org \
    --cc=hahnjo@hahnjo.de \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=kernel@esmil.dk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=niklas.cassel@wdc.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=palmer@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=zong.li@sifive.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).