linux-kernel - RE: sysfs topology for arm64 cluster

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

Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:54:36 +0000
From:	Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>
To:	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>
CC:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Peter Newton <peter.newton@....com>
Subject: RE: sysfs topology for arm64 cluster_id

Re-opening a thread from back in early 2015...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
> Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: sysfs topology for arm64 cluster_id
> 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>, Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>
> 
> 
> On 01/14/2015 12:00 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:47:00AM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> Hi Folks,
> >>
> >> TLDR: I would like to consider the value of adding something like
> >> "cluster_siblings" or similar in sysfs to describe ARM topology.
> >>
> >> A quick question on intended data representation in /sysfs topology
> >> before I ask the team on this end to go down the (wrong?) path. On ARM
> >> systems today, we have a hierarchical CPU topology:
> >>
> >>                  Socket ---- Coherent Interonnect ---- Socket
> >>                    |                                    |
> >>          Cluster0 ... ClusterN                Cluster0 ... ClusterN
> >>             |             |                      |             |
> >>       Core0...CoreN  Core0...CoreN        Core0...CoreN  Core0...CoreN
> >>         |       |      |        |           |       |      |       |
> >>      T0..TN  T0..Tn  T0..TN  T0..TN       T0..TN T0..TN  T0..TN  T0..TN
> >>
> >> Where we might (or might not) have threads in individual cores (a la SMT
> >> - it's allowed in the architecture at any rate) and we group cores
> >> together into units of clusters usually 2-4 cores in size (though this
> >> varies between implementations, some of which have different but similar
> >> concepts, such as AppliedMicro Potenza PMDs CPU complexes of dual
> >> cores). There are multiple clusters per "socket", and there might be an
> >> arbitrary number of sockets. We'll start to enable NUMA soon.
> >
> > I have a slight disagreement with the diagram above.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification - note that I was *explicitly not* saying
> that the MPIDR Affinity bits sufficiently described the system :) Nor do
> I think cpu-map does cover everything we want today.
> 
> > The MPIDR_EL1.Aff* fields and the cpu-map bindings currently only
> > describe the hierarchy, without any information on the relative
> > weighting between levels, and without any mapping to HW concepts such as
> > sockets. What these happen to map to is specific to a particular system,
> > and the hierarchy may be carved up in a number of possible ways
> > (including "virtual" clusters). There are also 24 RES0 bits that could
> > potentially become additional Aff fields we may need to describe in
> > future.
> 
> > "socket", "package", etc are meaningless unless the system provides a
> > mapping of Aff levels to these. We can't guess how the HW is actually
> > organised.
> 
> The replies I got from you and Arnd gel with my thinking that we want
> something generic enough in Linux to handle this in a non-architectural
> way (real topology, not just hierarchies). That should also cover the
> kind of cluster-like stuff e.g. AMD with NUMA on HT on a single socket
> and other stuff. So...it sounds like we need "something" to add to our
> understanding of hierarchy, and that "something" is in sysfs. A proposal
> needs to be derived (I think Don will followup since he is keen to poke
> at this). We'll go back to the ACPI ASWG folks to add whatever is
> missing to future ACPI bindings after that discussion.

So, whatever happened to this?

We are running into issues with some DPDK code on arm64 that makes assumptions
about the existence of a NUMA-based system based on the physical_package_id
in sysfs. On A57 cpus since physical_package_id represents 'cluster' 
things go a bit haywire.

Granted this particular app has an x86-centric assumption in it, but what is the
longer term view of how topologies should be represented?

This thread seemed to be heading in the direction of a solution, but 
then it seems to have just stopped.

Thanks,
Stuart