[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5abb978-75d4-962b-c6de-fd75dc6cc537@microchip.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:35:09 +0000
From: <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To: <mail@...chuod.ie>, <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
<palmer@...belt.com>, <palmer@...osinc.com>,
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <sudeep.holla@....com>,
<catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: <Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com>, <niklas.cassel@....com>,
<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>, <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
<zong.li@...ive.com>, <kernel@...il.dk>, <hahnjo@...njo.de>,
<guoren@...nel.org>, <anup@...infault.org>,
<atishp@...shpatra.org>, <heiko@...ech.de>,
<philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu>, <robh@...nel.org>, <maz@...nel.org>,
<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Fix RISC-V's arch-topology reporting
On 15/07/2022 18:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>
> Hey all,
> It's my first time messing around with arch/ code at all, let alone
> more than one arch, so forgive me if I have screwed up how to do a
> migration like this.
>
> The goal here is the fix the incorrectly reported arch topology on
> RISC-V which seems to have been broken since it was added.
> cpu, package and thread IDs are all currently reported as -1, so tools
> like lstopo think systems have multiple threads on the same core when
> this is not true:
> https://github.com/open-mpi/hwloc/issues/536
>
> arm64's topology code basically applies to RISC-V too, so it has been
> made generic along with the removal of MPIDR related code, which
> appears to be redudant code since '3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64: topology: Stop
> using MPIDR for topology information")' replaced the code that actually
> interacted with MPIDR with default values.
>
> I only built tested for arm{,64} , so hopefully it is not broken when
> used. Testing on both arm64 & !SMP RISC-V would really be appreciated!
FWIW, I pushed it to a branch for the sake of LKP testing and all
archs + randconfigs built fine.
Thanks,
Conor.
>
> For V2, I dropped the idea of doing a RISC-V specific implementation
> followed by a move to the generic code & just went for the more straight
> forward method of moving to the shared version first. I also dropped the
> RFC.
>
> V3 moves store_cpu_topology()'s definition down inside the arch check
> alongside the init function so that boot on 32bit arm is not broken.
>
> V4 has moved the RISC-V boot hart's call to store_cpu_topology() later
> into the boot process it is now right before SMP is brought up (or not
> in the case of !SMP). This prevents calling detect_cache_attributes()
> while we cannot allocate memory.
>
> V4 is also rebased on next-20220715 to get Sudeep's most recent
> arch_topology patchset.
>
> Thanks,
> Conor
>
> Conor Dooley (2):
> arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
> riscv: topology: fix default topology reporting
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 40 ------------------------------------
> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 2 +-
> arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 6014cfa5bf32cf8c5c58b3cfd5ee0e1542c8a825
> --
> 2.37.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists