Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA9jHpRzd=czTvLo9vYFoaDSg79WuW2K5utZ5q4xVvdMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:45:29 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Qing Wang <wangqing@...o.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] arch_topology: Set cluster identifier in each
 core/thread from /cpu-map

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 19:01, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> Please note until we agree on unified view for hardware topology, I will
> temporarily ignore any scheduler domain related issues/concerns as this
> thread/discussion is mixing up too much IMO. I am not ignoring sched_domain
> concerns, but deferring it until we agree on the hardware topology view
> which is user visible and how that impacts sched domain topology can be
> considered soon following that.

On my side, what i'm really interested in, it's the hardware topology
reported to the scheduler

>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 07:59:23PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 12:27, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:08:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 12:22, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > Why ? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't present the hardware cluster
> > > > > to the topology because of the above reason ? If so, sorry that is not a
> > > > > valid reason. We could add login to return NULL or appropriate value
> > > > > needed in cpu_clustergroup_mask id it matches MC level mask if we can't
> > > > > deal that in generic scheduler code. But the topology code can't be
> > > > > compromised for that reason as it is user visible.
> > > >
> > > > I tend to agree with Dietmar. The legacy use of cluster node in DT
> > > > refers to the dynamiQ or legacy b.L cluster which is also aligned to
> > > > the LLC and the MC scheduling level. The new cluster level that has
> > > > been introduced recently does not target this level but some
> > > > intermediate levels either inside like for the kupeng920 or the v9
> > > > complex or outside like for the ampere altra. So I would say that
> > > > there is one cluster node level in DT that refers to the same MC/LLC
> > > > level and only an additional child/parent cluster node should be used
> > > > to fill the clustergroup_mask.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again I completely disagree. Let us look at the problems separately.
> > > The hardware topology that some of the tools like lscpu and lstopo expects
> > > what the hardware looks like and not the scheduler's view of the hardware.
> > > So the topology masks that gets exposed to the user-space needs fixing
> > > even today. I have reports from various tooling people about the same.
> > > E.g. Juno getting exposed as dual socket system is utter non-sense.
> > >
> > > Yes scheduler uses most of the topology masks as is but that is not a must.
> > > There are these *group_mask functions that can implement what scheduler
> > > needs to be fed.
> > >
> > > I am not sure why the 2 issues are getting mixed up and that is the main
> > > reason why I jumped into this to make sure the topology masks are
> > > not tampered based on the way it needs to be used for scheduler.
> > >
> > > Both ACPI and DT on a platform must present exact same hardware topology
> > > to the user-space, there is no space for argument there.
> >
> > But that's exactly my point there:
> > ACPI doesn't show the dynamiQ level anywhere but only the llc which
> > are the same and your patch makes the dynamiQ level visible for DT in
> > addition to llc
> >
>
> Sorry if I am missing something obvious here, but both ACPI and DT has no
> special representation for dynamiQ clusters and hence it is impossible to
> deduce the same from either DT or ACPI. Can you provide some details
> or example as what you are referring as dynamiQ. Also what you mean by
> dynamiQ not shown on ACPI while shown with DT systems. If there is any
> discrepancies, we need to fix.
>
> Now, what I refer as discrepancy for example on Juno is below:
> (value read from a subset of per cpu sysfs files)
> cpu                     0       1       2       3       4       5
> cluster_id              -1      -1      -1      -1      -1      -1
> physical_package_id     1       0       0       1       1       1
> cluster_cpus_list       0       1       2       3       4       5
> package_cpus_list       0,3-5   1-2     1-2     0,3-5   0,3-5   0,3-5
>
> The above one is for DT which is wrong in all the 4 entries above.
> The below one is on ACPI and after applying my series on Juno.
>
> cpu                     0       1       2       3       4       5
> cluster_id              1       0       0       1       1       1
> physical_package_id     0       0       0       0       0       0
> cluster_cpus_list       0,3-5   1-2     1-2     0,3-5   0,3-5   0,3-5
> package_cpus_list       0-5     0-5     0-5     0-5     0-5     0-5
>
> This matches the expectation from the various userspace tools like lscpu,
> lstopo,..etc.
>
> > >
> > > > IIUC, we don't describe the dynamiQ level in ACPI which  uses cache
> > > > topology instead to define cpu_coregroup_mask whereas DT described the
> > > > dynamiQ instead of using cache topology. If you use cache topology
> > > > now, then you should skip the dynamiQ
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, unless someone can work out a binding to represent that and convince
> > > DT maintainers ;).
> > >
> > > > Finally, even if CLS and MC have the same scheduling behavior for now,
> > > > they might ends up with different scheduling properties which would
> > > > mean that replacing MC level by CLS one for current SoC would become
> > > > wrong
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again as I mentioned to Dietmar, that is something we can and must deal with
> > > in those *group_mask and not expect topology mask to be altered to meet
> > > CLS/MC or whatever sched domains needs. Sorry, that is my strong opinion
> > > as the topology is already user-space visible and (tooling) people are
> > > complaining that DT systems are broken and doesn't match ACPI systems.
> >
> > again, your proposal doesn't help here because the DT will show a
> > level that doesn't appears in ACPI
> >
>
> Which level exactly ? It matches exactly for Juno, the sysfs files are
> exact match after my changes. Again don't mix the scheduler domains for
> arguments here.
>
> > >
> > > So unless someone gives me non-scheduler and topology specific reasons
> > > to change that, sorry but my opinion on this matter is not going to change ;).
> > >
> > > You will get this view of topology, find a way to manage with all those
> > > *group_mask functions. By the way it is already handled for ACPI systems,
> >
> > AFAICT, no it's not, the cluster described in ACPI is not the dynamiQ
> > level that you make now visible to DT
>
> Again, no. There is no binding for dynamiQ level either in DT or ACPI and
> hence there is no way it can become visible on DT. So I have no idea why
> there is a thought process or assumption about existence of dynamiQ level
> in the DT. It doesn't exist. If that is wrong, can you point me to the
> bindings as well as existing device tree ? If you are referring to the
> phantom domains Dietmar mentioned in earlier threads, then they don't exist.
> It is made up and one need to get the bindings pushed before we can address
> such a system.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists