From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets
 defining package boundaries
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 12:51:03 +0100
Message-ID: <20190530115103.GA10919@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190529211340.17087-1-atish.patra@wdc.com>
 <20190529211340.17087-2-atish.patra@wdc.com>
 <49f41e62-5354-a674-d95f-5f63851a0ca6@ti.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49f41e62-5354-a674-d95f-5f63851a0ca6@ti.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>, Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infrad>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 5/29/19 5:13 PM, Atish Patra wrote:
> >From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> >The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
> >with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
> >representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
> >hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
> >view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
> >
> >However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
> >describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
> >the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
> >an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.
> >
> 
> Are physical package descriptions really needed? What does "socket" imply
> that a higher layer "cluster" node grouping does not? It doesn't imply a
> different NUMA distance and the definition of "socket" is already not well
> defined, is a dual chiplet processor not just a fancy dual "socket" or are
> dual "sockets" on a server board "slotket" card, will we need new names for
> those too..

Socket (or package) just implies what you suggest, a grouping of CPUs
based on the physical socket (or package). Some resources might be
associated with packages and more importantly socket information is
exposed to user-space. At the moment clusters are being exposed to
user-space as sockets which is less than ideal for some topologies.

At the moment user-space is only told about hw threads, cores, and
sockets. In the very near future it is going to be told about dies too
(look for Len Brown's multi-die patch set).

I don't see how we can provide correct information to user-space based
on the current information in DT. I'm not convinced it was a good idea
to expose this information to user-space to begin with but that is
another discussion.

Morten