Message-ID: <57A49FAD.5090004@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:16:13 -0400
From:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
To:	Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>, 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:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Peter Newton <peter.newton@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>,
	Vikram Sethi <vikrams@...eaurora.org>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@...hat.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: sysfs topology for arm64 cluster_id

Hi Stuart,

On 07/01/2016 11:54 AM, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> 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.

Can you elaborate a little more on the specifics of the DPDK failure? Would the following change fix it? This should make physical_package_id in sysfs read as -1 (default definition from include/linux/topology.h), while preserving the cluster affinity information for kernel scheduling purposes.

Thanks,
Cov

--- 8< ---
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
index 8b57339..f1095e7 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
@@ -13,7 +13,6 @@ struct cpu_topology {
 
 extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
 
-#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_id)
 #define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
 #define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
 #define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists