From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:31:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190415153147.GB28623@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190320234806.19748-5-atish.patra@wdc.com>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:05PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to
> represent their cpu toplogies. Since, we are moving the ARM64
> topology to common code to be used by other architectures, we
> can reuse that for ARM32 as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 22 +---------------------
> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 10 +++++-----
> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 10 +++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> index d4e76e0a..7c850611 100644
> --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> @@ -36,17 +36,25 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
> struct cpu_topology {
> int thread_id;
> int core_id;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> + int socket_id;
Sorry, but I can't find any reason why we need to do this ifdef dance
here, especially for socket_id vs package_id ? Other's I can understand
as there are new, but I am sure we can find a way and get away with
#ifdefery here completely.
> +#else
> int package_id;
> int llc_id;
> + cpumask_t llc_sibling;
> +#endif
> cpumask_t thread_sibling;
> cpumask_t core_sibling;
> - cpumask_t llc_sibling;
> };
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
> extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> +#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) (cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id)
> +#else
> #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) (cpu_topology[cpu].package_id)
> +#endif
Since all callsites must use topology_physical_package_id, we should be
able to rename socket_id to package_id easily.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-15 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-20 23:48 [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 1/5] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 2/5] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2019-03-24 21:16 ` Rob Herring
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 3/5] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2019-04-15 15:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 22:08 ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 13:23 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 18:54 ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology Atish Patra
2019-04-15 15:31 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2019-04-15 21:16 ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 13:09 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 19:04 ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2019-04-10 22:49 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-04-12 17:27 ` Sudeep Holla
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=20190415153147.GB28623@e107155-lin \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmitriy@oss-tech.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=ottosabart@seberm.com \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@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