linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/11] arm: perf: document PMU affinity binding

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20141117111450.GD18061@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:14:50 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] arm: perf: document PMU affinity binding

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 04:25:32PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> To describe the various ways CPU PMU interrupts might be wired up, we
> can refer to the topology information in the device tree.
> 
> This patch adds a new property to the PMU binding, interrupts-affinity,
> which describes the relationship between CPUs and interrupts. This
> information is necessary to handle systems with heterogeneous PMU
> implementations (e.g. big.LITTLE). Documentation is added describing the
> use of said property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with using interrupt affinity to convey
PMU affinity. It seems perfectly plausible for somebody to play the usual
trick of ORing all the irq lines together, despite having a big/little
PMU configuration.

Can you describe such a system with this binding?

> +Example 2 (Multiple clusters with single interrupts):
> +
> +cpus {
> +	#address-cells = <1>;
> +	#size-cells = <1>;
> +
> +	CPU0: cpu@0 {
> +		reg = <0x0>;
> +		compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-pmu";
> +	};
> +
> +	CPU1: cpu@1 {
> +		reg = <0x1>;
> +		compatible = "arm,cotex-a15-pmu";

cortex

> +	};
> +
> +	CPU100: cpu@100 {
> +		reg = <0x100>;
> +		compatible = "arm,cortex-a7-pmu";
> +	};
> +
> +	cpu-map {
> +		cluster0 {
> +			CORE_0_0: core0 {
> +				cpu = <&CPU0>;
> +			};
> +			CORE_0_1: core1 {
> +				cpu = <&CPU1>;
> +			};
> +		};
> +		cluster1 {
> +			CORE_1_0: core0 {
> +				cpu = <&CPU100>;
> +			};
> +		};
> +	};
> +};
> +
> +pmu_a15 {
> +	compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-pmu";
> +	interrupts = <100>, <101>;
> +	interrupts-affinity = <&CORE0>, <&CORE1>;
> +};
> +
> +pmu_a7 {
> +	compatible = "arm,cortex-a7-pmu";
> +	interrupts = <105>;
> +	interrupts-affinity = <&CORE_1_0>;
> +};
> +
> +Example 3 (Multiple clusters with per-cpu interrupts):
> +
> +cpus {
> +	#address-cells = <1>;
> +	#size-cells = <1>;
> +
> +	CPU0: cpu@0 {
> +		reg = <0x0>;
> +		compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-pmu";
> +	};
> +
> +	CPU1: cpu@1 {
> +		reg = <0x1>;
> +		compatible = "arm,cotex-a15-pmu";

Same here.

Will
--
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/