linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ARM64: add cpu topology definition

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 09:00:37 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linaro-acpi <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@...aro.org>,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ARM64: add cpu topology definition

On 2013-8-14 19:27, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:54:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:46:06AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 27 July 2013 12:42, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>> Power aware scheduling needs the cpu topology information to improve the
>>>> cpu scheduler decision making.
>>>
>>> It's not only power aware scheduling. The scheduler already uses
>>> topology and cache sharing when  CONFIG_SCHED_MC and/or
>>> CONFIG_SCHED_SMT are enable. So you should also add these configs for
>>> arm64 so the scheduler can use it
>>
>> ... except that the architecture doesn't define what the AFF fields in MPIDR
>> really represent. Using them to make key scheduling decisions relating to
>> cache proximity seems pretty risky to me, especially given the track record
>> we've seen already on AArch32 silicon. It's a convenient register if it
>> contains the data we want it to contain, but we need to force ourselves to
>> come to terms with reality here and simply use it as an identifier for a
>> CPU.
>>
>> Can't we just use the device-tree to represent this topological data for
>> arm64? Lorenzo has been working on bindings in this area.
> 
> Catching up on email after holiday - I agree with Will here, we should
> use DT for representing the topology (or ACPI) and not rely on the MPIDR
> value.
> 

Ok, I'm working on the ACPI part now, Thanks for your comments.

Regards
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/