[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190603090531.GA26487@e107155-lin>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:05:31 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Cc: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:49:13AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> 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%)
> > >
[...]
> > <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?
>
That's simple. Today any ARM{32,64} DT based platform sets their cluster
id to physical package id, which is exposed to userspace. The userspace
can/must interpret that as multi-socket system. E.g. TC2/Juno which
2 clusters show up as 2 socket systems which is wrong and needs fixing.
We have fixed it for ARM64 ACPI based systems but for DT(mostly used in
mobile/embedded) we need to make sure we don't break anything else before
we fix it.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists