[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c45b13b9-52ae-a52b-ce39-77f7ebe09507@gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
cc: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, patches@...erecomputing.com,
Shubhang@...amperecomputing.com, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
bjorn.andersson@....qualcomm.com, geert+renesas@...der.be, arnd@...db.de,
nm@...com, ebiggers@...nel.org, nfraprado@...labora.com,
prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: enable CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
> Can we figure out which platforms benchmarks were affected and why?
>
> It seems the notion of a "cluster" on ARM64 is derived (I guess a better
> word than "invented" hehe) from sibling information instead of PPTT. But
> using that information should work fine right?
Sorry no that is not correct. The cluster information is correctly read
from the ACPI tables and the cluster ids are avaialble in
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuXX/topology/cluster_id
if CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER is enabled.
If there is an issue then it is a problem with the vendor firmware
providing cluster id configurations via ACPI that cause regressions.
We could add a blacklist for those platforms to avoid regressions but we
should not allow that to hinder us to enable full support for clustering
on ARM64.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists