linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] sched: topology: make cache topology separate from cpu topology

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:18:34 +0000
From:   王擎 <wangqing@...o.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC:     Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sched: topology: make cache topology separate from cpu
 topology


>>
>>
>> >On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 13:59, Qing Wang <wangqing@...o.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>
>> >>
>> >> Some architectures(e.g. ARM64), caches are implemented below:
>> >> cluster:                     ****** cluster 0 *****      ****** cluster 1 *****
>> >> core:                         0      1          2      3          4      5           6      7
>> (add cache level 1)        c0    c1        c2    c3         c4    c5         c6    c7
>> >> cache(Leveln):         **cache0**  **cache1**  **cache2**  **cache3**
>> (add cache level 3)        *************share level 3 cache ***************
>> >> sd_llc_id(current):     0      0          0      0          4      4           4      4
>> >> sd_llc_id(should be): 0      0          2      2          4      4           6      6
>> >>
>> Here, n always be 2 in ARM64, but others are also possible.
>> core[0,1] form a complex(ARMV9),  which share L2 cache, core[2,3] is the same.
>>
>> >> Caches and cpus have different topology, this causes cpus_share_cache()
>> >> return the wrong value, which will affect the CPU load balance.
>> >>
>> >What does your current scheduler topology  look like?
>> >
>> >For CPU 0 to 3, do you have the below ?
>> >DIE [0     -     3] [4-7]
>> >MC  [0] [1] [2] [3]
>>
>> The current scheduler topology consistent with CPU topology:
>> DIE  [0-7]
>> MC  [0-3] [4-7]  (SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)
>> Most Android phones have this topology.
>> >
>> >But you would like something like below for cpu 0-1 instead ?
>> >DIE [0     -     3] [4-7]
>> >CLS [0 - 1] [2 - 3]
>> >MC  [0] [1]
>> >
>> >with SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES only set to MC level ?
>>
>> We don't change the current scheduler topology, but the
>> cache topology should be separated like below:
>
>The scheduler topology is not only cpu topology but a mixed of cpu and
>cache/memory cache topology
>
>> [0-7]                          (shared level 3 cache )
>> [0-1] [2-3][4-5][6-7]   (shared level 2 cache )
>
>So you don't  bother the intermediate cluster level which is even simpler.
>you have to modify generic arch topology so that cpu_coregroup_mask
>returns the correct cpu mask directly.
>
>You will notice a llc_sibling field that is currently used by acpi but
>not DT to return llc cpu mask
>
cpu_topology[].llc_sibling describe the last level cache of whole system, 
not in the sched_domain.

in the above cache topology, llc_sibling is 0xff([0-7]) , it describes
the L3 cache sibling, but sd_llc_id describes the maximum shared cache
in sd, which should be [0-1] instead of [0-3].

Thanks,
Wang