[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb057c6a-0eb4-581e-c259-7a31545e0ae7@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:38:24 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>,
catalin.marinas@....com
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy.linton@....com,
Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: topology: Map PPTT node offset to logic
physical package id
Hi Shunyong,
On 28/06/18 10:18, Shunyong Yang wrote:
> As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
> find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() will return offset of the node with
> Physical package field set when querying physical package id. So, it
> returns 162(0xA2) in following example.
>
> [0A2h 0162 1] Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Hierarchy
> Node]
> [0A3h 0163 1] Length : 1C
> [0A4h 0164 2] Reserved : 0000
> [0A6h 0166 4] Flags (decoded below) : 00000003
> Physical package : 1
> ACPI Processor ID valid : 1
> [0AAh 0170 4] Parent : 00000000
> [0AEh 0174 4] ACPI Processor ID : 00001000
> [0B2h 0178 4] Private Resource Number : 00000002
> [0B6h 0182 4] Private Resource : 0000006C
> [0BAh 0186 4] Private Resource : 00000084
>
> So, when "cat physical_package" in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/,
> it will output 162(0xA2). And if some items are added before the node
> above, the output will change to other value.
>
> This patch maps the node offset to a logic package id. It maps the first
> node offset to 0, the second to 1, and so on.
>
> Then, it will not output a big value, such as 162 above. And it will
> not change when some nodes(Physical package not set) are added.
>
> And as long as the nodes with Physical package field set in PPTT keeps
> the real hardware order, the logic id can map to hardware package id to
> some extent.
>
> Hope to get feedback from you.
Thanks for the patch, but Andrew Jones has also posted a patch[1] which
I had a look but was not sure what is the best approach to fix it yet.
I will think about it and respond to that.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10482261
Powered by blists - more mailing lists