[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA=dy4M2OK+GqvPDo9D8YBZAHbEpM-YPVZEyEUjEJKU5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:25:45 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: 王擎 <wangqing@...o.com>
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 Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 09:18, 王擎 <wangqing@...o.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >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
If llc_sibling was 0xff([0-7] on your system, you would have only one level:
MC[0-7]
> the L3 cache sibling, but sd_llc_id describes the maximum shared cache
> in sd, which should be [0-1] instead of [0-3].
sd_llc_id describes the last sched_domain with SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES.
If you want llc to be [0-3] make sure that the
sched_domain_topology_level array returns the correct cpumask with
this flag
>
> Thanks,
> Wang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists