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  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]
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:08:45 -0700
From:   Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@...-tech.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Otto Sabart <ottosabart@...erm.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 3/5] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to
 common code.

On 4/15/19 8:27 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Atish,
> 
> Thanks again for doing this. Overall changes look good except a couple
> of minor nit, see below.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:04PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
>> their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
>> a common place instead of duplicate code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
>> Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h |  23 ---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c      | 303 +-----------------------------
>>   drivers/base/arch_topology.c      | 298 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   drivers/base/topology.c           |   1 +
>>   include/linux/arch_topology.h     |  28 +++
>>   5 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 323 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> index edfcf8d9..6cc6a860 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
>>    * Written by: Juri Lelli, ARM Ltd.
>>    */
>>   
>> -#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>   #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>   #include <linux/cpu.h>
>>   #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>>   #include <linux/device.h>
>> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@
>>   #include <linux/string.h>
>>   #include <linux/sched/topology.h>
>>   #include <linux/cpuset.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
>> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>>   
>>   DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>>   
>> @@ -278,3 +283,294 @@ static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>>   #else
>>   core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
>>   #endif
>> +
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
> 
> Why can't the above one be just GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY ?
> I may be missing to find it myself, but would like to know.
> 
GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY is now used for both RISCV, ARM & ARM64.
The below functions under this #ifdef have different implementation for 
ARM and ARM64.

parse_dt_topology
cpu_coregroup_mask
update_siblings_masks

While we can combine the later two functions and move them to common 
code as well, parse_dt_topology is significantly different.

That's why we need some kind of #ifdef or renaming of parse_dt_topology 
for ARM32 code.

Thanks for the review!!

Regards,
Atish
>> +
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists