linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity bindings

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

Message-ID: <20160321114956.GD12319@e106622-lin>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:49:56 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	Sai Gurrappadi <sgurrappadi@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	pboonstoppel@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity
 bindings

Hi Vincent,

On 21/03/16 12:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 21 March 2016 at 11:53, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
> > Hi Sai,
> >
> > On 18/03/16 10:49, Sai Gurrappadi wrote:
> >> Hi Juri,
> >>
> >> On 03/18/2016 07:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > +
> >> > +==========================================
> >> > +2 - CPU capacity definition
> >> > +==========================================
> >> > +
> >> > +CPU capacity is a number that provides the scheduler information about CPUs
> >> > +heterogeneity. Such heterogeneity can come from micro-architectural differences
> >> > +(e.g., ARM big.LITTLE systems) or maximum frequency at which CPUs can run
> >> > +(e.g., SMP systems with multiple frequency domains). Heterogeneity in this
> >> > +context is about differing performance characteristics; this binding tries to
> >> > +capture a first-order approximation of the relative performance of CPUs.
> >>
> >> Any reason why this capacity number is not dynamically generated based on the
> >> max frequency for each CPU? The DT property would then instead specify just
> >> the micro-architectural differences between the CPU types.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure I clearly understand your question, so I'll try to
> > reiterate it.
> >
> > Are you asking why we don't dynamically profile the system, at boot for
> > example, to get this number? Or do you ask why this number couldn't be
> > only describing micro-arch differences (so, if I get it right, we should
> > then multiply it by max freq to get the capacity of a CPU)?
> >
> > We already played with the first option (please refer to v2 and v3), but
> > we ended up agreeing that dynamic profiling adds overhead to the boot
> > process (while a DT approach can provide information to speed up boot)
> > and it is in general not repeatable/reliable (as numbers can vary from
> > boot to boot for different reasons).
> >
> > The second option I think can be feasible, but I'm not sure what we gain
> > in practice. We will still need to specify a per-platform number, right?
> 
> So could we use dt binding like dhrystone = <xyz> (with a unit like
> DMIPS/Mhz)  which can then be combined with OPP table to gives a
> 1st-order approximation of each CPU capacity ?
> 

But we'll still need to normalize this w.r.t the highest score we get on
a specific platform, right? And while we are at normalizing it, it is
probably simpler if we keep the frequency component as part of the
number, IMHO. But, maybe keeping the frequency component separate is
more acceptable from a DT binding perspective?

Thanks,

- Juri