linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: add PPI interrupt partitions for the ARM PMUs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6d52d3aa-0dab-406d-bf4f-0bace77d46d7@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:08:32 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, Konrad Dybcio
 <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: add PPI interrupt
 partitions for the ARM PMUs

On 11.02.2025 9:02 AM, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
> On 10/02/2025 19:29, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 10.02.2025 4:30 PM, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2025 16:23, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 9.02.2025 3:44 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2025 21:30, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 7.02.2025 11:31 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>>>> The PMUs shares the same per-cpu (PPI) interrupt, so declare the proper
>>>>>>> interrupt partition maps and use the 4th interrupt cell to pass the
>>>>>>> partition phandle for each ARM PMU node.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -5309,6 +5309,20 @@ intc: interrupt-controller@...00000 {
>>>>>>>                 #size-cells = <2>;
>>>>>>>                 ranges;
>>>>>>>     +            ppi-partitions {
>>>>>>> +                ppi_cluster0: interrupt-partition-0 {
>>>>>>> +                    affinity = <&cpu0 &cpu1>;
>>>>>>> +                };
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +                ppi_cluster1: interrupt-partition-1 {
>>>>>>> +                    affinity = <&cpu2 &cpu3 &cpu4 &cpu5 &cpu6>;
>>>>>>> +                };
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +                ppi_cluster2: interrupt-partition-2 {
>>>>>>> +                    affinity = <&cpu7>;
>>>>>>> +                };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure this is accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *think* it's cores 0-1 and 2-7, but I can't find a concrete answer
>>>>>
>>>>> Core 7 is a Cortex-X4, and has a dedicated PMU node, look at the cpu compatibles.
>>>>
>>>> Look at what these compatibles do in code. Nothing special for the X.
>>>
>>> So you suggest to revert Rob's change ?
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240417204247.3216703-1-robh@kernel.org/
>>>
>>> So what I understood is that yes the code is the same, but the perf
>>> attributes are not necessarily the same between heterogeneous cores,
>>> so each instance here would load the attributes for each core type
>>> correctly instead of only using the ones from the first core
>>>
>>> Again, other SoCs uses this same scheme so I wonder what's the issue here ?
>>
>> So I'm a little confused here. Is this partitioning scheme only describing
>> a set of same-kind cores to Linux so that the PMU interrupts only arrive at
>> one PMU device? Or does it reflect some actual physical topology of clusters
>> and how they're connected to the GIC?
>>
>> If the former, I have no issues with this version of the patch.
> 
> The former, we simply partition the PPI interrupt for each device node, it
> has obviously something to do with the topology, but the goal is not to describe
> the topology.

Ok, good

Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>

Konrad