| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <28118149-193d-2a8a-995a-2f1829e95c1c@wdc.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 01:49:13 -0700
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Otto Sabart <ottosabart@...erm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common
binding.
On 5/30/19 1:55 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/29/19 4:13 PM, Atish Patra wrote:
>> cpu-map binding can be used to described cpu topology for both
>> RISC-V & ARM. It makes more sense to move the binding to document
>> to a common place.
>>
>> The relevant discussion can be found here.
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
>> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>> ---
>> .../topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} | 82 +++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>> rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{arm/topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} (86%)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
>> similarity index 86%
>> rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
>> rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
>> index 3b8febb46dad..069addccab14 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
>> @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
>> ===========================================
>> -ARM topology binding description
>> +CPU topology binding description
>> ===========================================
>>
>> ===========================================
>> 1 - Introduction
>> ===========================================
>>
>> -In an ARM system, the hierarchy of CPUs is defined through three entities that
>> +In a SMP system, the hierarchy of CPUs is defined through three entities that
>> are used to describe the layout of physical CPUs in the system:
>>
>> - socket
>> @@ -14,9 +14,6 @@ are used to describe the layout of physical CPUs in the system:
>> - core
>> - thread
>>
>> -The cpu nodes (bindings defined in [1]) represent the devices that
>> -correspond to physical CPUs and are to be mapped to the hierarchy levels.
>> -
>> The bottom hierarchy level sits at core or thread level depending on whether
>> symmetric multi-threading (SMT) is supported or not.
>>
>> @@ -25,33 +22,31 @@ threads existing in the system and map to the hierarchy level "thread" above.
>> In systems where SMT is not supported "cpu" nodes represent all cores present
>> in the system and map to the hierarchy level "core" above.
>>
>> -ARM topology bindings allow one to associate cpu nodes with hierarchical groups
>> +CPU topology bindings allow one to associate cpu nodes with hierarchical groups
>> corresponding to the system hierarchy; syntactically they are defined as device
>> tree nodes.
>>
>> -The remainder of this document provides the topology bindings for ARM, based
>> -on the Devicetree Specification, available from:
>> +Currently, only ARM/RISC-V intend to use this cpu topology binding but it may be
>> +used for any other architecture as well.
>>
>> -https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
>> +The cpu nodes, as per bindings defined in [4], represent the devices that
>> +correspond to physical CPUs and are to be mapped to the hierarchy levels.
>>
>> -If not stated otherwise, whenever a reference to a cpu node phandle is made its
>> -value must point to a cpu node compliant with the cpu node bindings as
>> -documented in [1].
>> A topology description containing phandles to cpu nodes that are not compliant
>> -with bindings standardized in [1] is therefore considered invalid.
>> +with bindings standardized in [4] is therefore considered invalid.
>>
>> ===========================================
>> 2 - cpu-map node
>> ===========================================
>>
>> -The ARM CPU topology is defined within the cpu-map node, which is a direct
>> +The ARM/RISC-V CPU topology is defined within the cpu-map node, which is a direct
>> child of the cpus node and provides a container where the actual topology
>> nodes are listed.
>>
>> - cpu-map node
>>
>> - Usage: Optional - On ARM SMP systems provide CPUs topology to the OS.
>> - ARM uniprocessor systems do not require a topology
>> + Usage: Optional - On SMP systems provide CPUs topology to the OS.
>> + Uniprocessor systems do not require a topology
>> description and therefore should not define a
>> cpu-map node.
>>
>> @@ -494,8 +489,63 @@ cpus {
>> };
>> };
>>
>> +Example 3: HiFive Unleashed (RISC-V 64 bit, 4 core system)
>> +
>> +{
>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>> + compatible = "sifive,fu540g", "sifive,fu500";
>> + model = "sifive,hifive-unleashed-a00";
>> +
>> + ...
>> + cpus {
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> + cpu-map {
>> + cluster0 {
>> + core0 {
>> + cpu = <&CPU1>;
>> + };
>> + core1 {
>> + cpu = <&CPU2>;
>> + };
>> + core2 {
>> + cpu0 = <&CPU2>;
>> + };
>> + core3 {
>> + cpu0 = <&CPU3>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>
>
> <nit picking>
>
> While socket is optional, its probably a good idea to include the node
> in the example even if the result is the same.
Sure. I will update that.
That is because at least
> on arm64 the DT clusters=sockets decision had performance implications
> for larger systems.
>
> Assuring the socket information is correct is helpful by itself to avoid
> having to explain why a single socket machine is displaying some other
> value in lscpu.
>
Just for my understanding, can you give a example?
>
>
>> +
>> + CPU1: cpu@1 {
>> + device_type = "cpu";
>> + compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
>> + reg = <0x1>;
>> + }
>> +
>> + CPU2: cpu@2 {
>> + device_type = "cpu";
>> + compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
>> + reg = <0x2>;
>> + }
>> + CPU3: cpu@3 {
>> + device_type = "cpu";
>> + compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
>> + reg = <0x3>;
>> + }
>> + CPU4: cpu@4 {
>> + device_type = "cpu";
>> + compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
>> + reg = <0x4>;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +};
>> ===============================================================================
>> [1] ARM Linux kernel documentation
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
>> [2] Devicetree NUMA binding description
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
>> +[3] RISC-V Linux kernel documentation
>> + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.txt
>> +[4] https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
>
--
Regards,
Atish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists