From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=hLaT=A7=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,
	SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA908C433E1
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D5DE2080D
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6D5DE2080D
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9GB3472FzDqbv
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:08:59 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record)
 smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5;
 helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com;
 receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com
Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com
 [148.163.158.5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9G874HDbzDqbG
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:07:19 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1])
 by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id
 06K95N9e188628; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:07:12 -0400
Received: from ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (ba.79.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com
 [169.63.121.186])
 by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32d5pecx60-1
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:07:11 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06K90rIe028090;
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:11 GMT
Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com
 [9.57.198.27]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32brq8qu34-1
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:11 +0000
Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com
 [9.57.199.107])
 by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
 06K979Fs54329834
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:09 GMT
Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA63124055;
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235A5124054;
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sofia.ibm.com (unknown [9.85.72.83])
 by b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP;
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by sofia.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id 2FEA92E3202; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:37:02 +0530 (IST)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:37:02 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] powerpc/smp: Generalize 2nd sched domain
Message-ID: <20200720090702.GB6680@in.ibm.com>
References: <20200714043624.5648-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200714043624.5648-7-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200717063755.GA32531@in.ibm.com>
 <20200720061911.GC21103@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200720061911.GC21103@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687
 definitions=2020-07-20_05:2020-07-17,
 2020-07-20 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0
 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0
 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0
 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0
 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007200069
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>,
 Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 Oliver OHalloran <oliveroh@au1.ibm.com>, Michael Neuling <mikey@linux.ibm.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>,
 linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 Nick Piggin <npiggin@au1.ibm.com>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:49:11AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2020-07-17 12:07:55]:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:19AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Currently "CACHE" domain happens to be the 2nd sched domain as per
> > > powerpc_topology. This domain will collapse if cpumask of l2-cache is
> > > same as SMT domain. However we could generalize this domain such that it
> > > could mean either be a "CACHE" domain or a "BIGCORE" domain.
> > > 
> > > While setting up the "CACHE" domain, check if shared_cache is already
> > > set.
> > > 
> > > Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
> > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@au1.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Oliver OHalloran <oliveroh@au1.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > @@ -867,11 +869,16 @@ static const struct cpumask *smallcore_smt_mask(int cpu)
> > >  }
> > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > +static const struct cpumask *cpu_bigcore_mask(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +	return cpu_core_mask(cpu);
> > 
> > It should be cpu_smt_mask() if we want the redundant big-core to be
> > degenerated in favour of the SMT level on P8, no? Because
> > cpu_core_mask refers to all the CPUs that are in the same chip.
> > 
> 
> Right, but it cant be cpu_smt_mask since cpu_smt_mask is only enabled in
> CONFIG_SCHED_SMT. I was looking at using sibling_map, but we have to careful
> for power9 / PowerNV mode. Guess that should be fine.

Ok.

> 
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static struct sched_domain_topology_level powerpc_topology[] = {
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> > >  	{ cpu_smt_mask, powerpc_smt_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(SMT) },
> > >  #endif
> > > -	{ shared_cache_mask, powerpc_shared_cache_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(CACHE) },
> > > +	{ cpu_bigcore_mask, SD_INIT_NAME(BIGCORE) },
> > >  	{ cpu_cpu_mask, SD_INIT_NAME(DIE) },
> > >  	{ NULL, },
> > >  };
> > > @@ -1319,7 +1326,6 @@ static void add_cpu_to_masks(int cpu)
> > >  void start_secondary(void *unused)
> > >  {
> > >  	unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > -	struct cpumask *(*sibling_mask)(int) = cpu_sibling_mask;
> > > 
> > >  	mmgrab(&init_mm);
> > >  	current->active_mm = &init_mm;
> > > @@ -1345,14 +1351,20 @@ void start_secondary(void *unused)
> > >  	/* Update topology CPU masks */
> > >  	add_cpu_to_masks(cpu);
> > > 
> > > -	if (has_big_cores)
> > > -		sibling_mask = cpu_smallcore_mask;
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Check for any shared caches. Note that this must be done on a
> > >  	 * per-core basis because one core in the pair might be disabled.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	if (!cpumask_equal(cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu), sibling_mask(cpu)))
> > > -		shared_caches = true;
> > > +	if (!shared_caches) {
> > > +		struct cpumask *(*sibling_mask)(int) = cpu_sibling_mask;
> > > +		struct cpumask *mask = cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu);
> > > +
> > > +		if (has_big_cores)
> > > +			sibling_mask = cpu_smallcore_mask;
> > > +
> > > +		if (cpumask_weight(mask) > cpumask_weight(sibling_mask(cpu)))
> > > +			shared_caches = true;
> > 
> > Shouldn't we use cpumask_subset() here ?
> 
> Wouldn't cpumask_subset should return 1 if both are same?

When are caches shared ? When the sibling_mask(cpu)  is a
strict-subset of cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu). cpumask_weight() only
checks if the number of CPUs in cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu) is greater than
sibling_mask(cpu) but not if constituent CPUs of the former forms
a strict superset of the latter.

We are better off using
if (!cpumask_equal(sibling_mask(cpu), mask) &&
    cpumask_subset(sibling_mask(cpu), mask))

which is accurate.



> We dont want to have shared_caches set if both the masks are equal.


> 
> >   			
> > > +	}
> > > 
> > >  	set_numa_node(numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu]);
> > >  	set_numa_mem(local_memory_node(numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu]));
> > > @@ -1390,6 +1402,14 @@ void __init smp_cpus_done(unsigned int max_cpus)
> > >  		smp_ops->bringup_done();
> > > 
> > >  	dump_numa_cpu_topology();
> > > +	if (shared_caches) {
> > > +		pr_info("Using shared cache scheduler topology\n");
> > > +		powerpc_topology[bigcore_idx].mask = shared_cache_mask;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
> > > +		powerpc_topology[bigcore_idx].name = "CACHE";
> > > +#endif
> > > +		powerpc_topology[bigcore_idx].sd_flags = powerpc_shared_cache_flags;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > 
> > I would much rather that we have all the topology-fixups done in one
> > function.
> > 
> > fixup_topology(void) {
> >      if (has_big_core)
> >         powerpc_topology[smt_idx].mask = smallcore_smt_mask;
> > 
> >     if (shared_caches) {
> >        const char *name = "CACHE";
> >        powerpc_topology[bigcore_idx].mask = shared_cache_mask;
> >        strlcpy(powerpc_topology[bigcore_idx].name, name,
> >        				strlen(name));
> >        powerpc_topology[bigcore_idx].sd_flags = powerpc_shared_cache_flags;
> >     }
> > 
> >     /* Any other changes to the topology structure here */
> 
> We could do this.
> 
> > 
> > And also as an optimization, get rid of degenerate structures here
> > itself so that we don't pay additional penalty while building the
> > sched-domains each time.
> > 
> 
> Yes this is definitely in plan, but slightly later in time.
>

Ah, ok. Fine in that case.

> Thanks for the review and comments.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks and Regards
> Srikar Dronamraju