linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] arm64: Topology, rename 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <965127a6-816b-8e0c-d228-a3d73a8c643a@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:29:35 +0800
From:   Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>
To:     Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@...s.arm.com>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
CC:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        <will.deacon@....com>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        <Jonathan.Zhang@...ium.com>, <ahs3@...hat.com>,
        <Jayachandran.Nair@...ium.com>, <austinwc@...eaurora.org>,
        <lenb@...nel.org>, <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] arm64: Topology, rename cluster_id

Hi,

On 2017/12/18 20:42, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:36:35AM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/13/2017 12:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> [+Morten, Dietmar]
>>>
>>> $SUBJECT should be:
>>>
>>> arm64: topology: rename cluster_id
>>
[cut]
>>
>> I was hoping someone else would comment here, but my take at this point is
>> that it doesn't really matter in a functional sense at the moment.
>> Like the chiplet discussion it can be the subject of a future patch along
>> with the patches which tweak the scheduler to understand the split.
>>
>> BTW, given that i'm OoO next week, and the following that are the holidays,
>> I don't intend to repost this for a couple weeks. I don't think there are
>> any issues with this set.
>>
>>>
>>> There is also arch/arm to take into account, again, this patch is
>>> just renaming (as it should have named since the beginning) a
>>> topology level but we should consider everything from a legacy
>>> perspective.
> 
> arch/arm has gone for thread/core/socket for the three topology levels
> it supports.
> 
> I'm not sure what short term value keeping cluster_id has? Isn't it just
> about where we make the package = cluster assignment? Currently it is in
> the definition of topology_physical_package_id. If we keep cluster_id
> and add package_id, it gets moved into the MPIDR/DT parsing code. 
> 
> Keeping cluster_id and introducing a topology_cluster_id function could
> help cleaning up some of the users of topology_physical_package_id that
> currently assumes package_id == cluster_id though.

I think we still need the information describing which cores are in one cluster.
Many arm64 chips have the architecture core/cluster/socket. Cores in one cluster may
share a same L2 cache. That information can be used to build the sched_domain. If we put
cores in one cluster in one sched_domain, the performance will be better.(please see
kernel/sched/topology.c:1197, cpu_coregroup_mask() uses 'core_sibling' to build a multi-core
sched_domain)
So I think we still need variable to record which cores are in one sched_domain for future use.

Thanks,
Xiongfeng

> 
> Morten
> 
> .
>