All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org>
To: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, quentin.perret@arm.com,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Cc: juri.lelli@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	jeremy.linton@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 12:26:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2f0b869-826e-3d95-159f-5867ccb75a08@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190328044705.16838-1-clingutla@codeaurora.org>

Thanks for making the change suggested.

Should not this be v3.

Please add version detail properly including what changes you made in 
which version after ---,  that makes the patch easy to review.

Thanks.
Mukesh


On 3/28/2019 10:17 AM, Lingutla Chandrasekhar wrote:
> If user updates any cpu's cpu_capacity, then the new value is going to
> be applied to all its online sibling cpus. But this need not to be correct
> always, as sibling cpus (in ARM, same micro architecture cpus) would have
> different cpu_capacity with different performance characteristics.
> So, updating the user supplied cpu_capacity to all cpu siblings
> is not correct.
>
> And another problem is, current code assumes that 'all cpus in a cluster
> or with same package_id (core_siblings), would have same cpu_capacity'.
> But with commit '5bdd2b3f0f8 ("arm64: topology: add support to remove
> cpu topology sibling masks")', when a cpu hotplugged out, the cpu
> information gets cleared in its sibling cpus. So, user supplied
> cpu_capacity would be applied to only online sibling cpus at the time.
> After that, if any cpu hotplugged in, it would have different cpu_capacity
> than its siblings, which breaks the above assumption.
>
> So, instead of mucking around the core sibling mask for user supplied
> value, use device-tree to set cpu capacity. And make the cpu_capacity
> node as read-only to know the asymmetry between cpus in the system.
> While at it, remove cpu_scale_mutex usage, which used for sysfs write
> protection.
>
> Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Tested-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index edfcf8d982e4..1739d7e1952a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
>    */
>   
>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
> -#include <linux/arch_topology.h>
>   #include <linux/cpu.h>
>   #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>   #include <linux/device.h>
> @@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq,
>   		per_cpu(freq_scale, i) = scale;
>   }
>   
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpu_scale_mutex);
>   DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>   
>   void topology_set_cpu_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity)
> @@ -51,37 +49,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_capacity_show(struct device *dev,
>   static void update_topology_flags_workfn(struct work_struct *work);
>   static DECLARE_WORK(update_topology_flags_work, update_topology_flags_workfn);
>   
> -static ssize_t cpu_capacity_store(struct device *dev,
> -				  struct device_attribute *attr,
> -				  const char *buf,
> -				  size_t count)
> -{
> -	struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev);
> -	int this_cpu = cpu->dev.id;
> -	int i;
> -	unsigned long new_capacity;
> -	ssize_t ret;
> -
> -	if (!count)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &new_capacity);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	if (new_capacity > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
> -	for_each_cpu(i, &cpu_topology[this_cpu].core_sibling)
> -		topology_set_cpu_scale(i, new_capacity);
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
> -
> -	schedule_work(&update_topology_flags_work);
> -
> -	return count;
> -}
> -
> -static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(cpu_capacity);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(cpu_capacity);
>   
>   static int register_cpu_capacity_sysctl(void)
>   {
> @@ -141,7 +109,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void)
>   		return;
>   
>   	pr_debug("cpu_capacity: capacity_scale=%u\n", capacity_scale);
> -	mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>   		pr_debug("cpu_capacity: cpu=%d raw_capacity=%u\n",
>   			 cpu, raw_capacity[cpu]);
> @@ -151,7 +118,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void)
>   		pr_debug("cpu_capacity: CPU%d cpu_capacity=%lu\n",
>   			cpu, topology_get_cpu_scale(NULL, cpu));
>   	}
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
>   }
>   
>   bool __init topology_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org>
To: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, quentin.perret@arm.com,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
	juri.lelli@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 12:26:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2f0b869-826e-3d95-159f-5867ccb75a08@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190328044705.16838-1-clingutla@codeaurora.org>

Thanks for making the change suggested.

Should not this be v3.

Please add version detail properly including what changes you made in 
which version after ---,  that makes the patch easy to review.

Thanks.
Mukesh


On 3/28/2019 10:17 AM, Lingutla Chandrasekhar wrote:
> If user updates any cpu's cpu_capacity, then the new value is going to
> be applied to all its online sibling cpus. But this need not to be correct
> always, as sibling cpus (in ARM, same micro architecture cpus) would have
> different cpu_capacity with different performance characteristics.
> So, updating the user supplied cpu_capacity to all cpu siblings
> is not correct.
>
> And another problem is, current code assumes that 'all cpus in a cluster
> or with same package_id (core_siblings), would have same cpu_capacity'.
> But with commit '5bdd2b3f0f8 ("arm64: topology: add support to remove
> cpu topology sibling masks")', when a cpu hotplugged out, the cpu
> information gets cleared in its sibling cpus. So, user supplied
> cpu_capacity would be applied to only online sibling cpus at the time.
> After that, if any cpu hotplugged in, it would have different cpu_capacity
> than its siblings, which breaks the above assumption.
>
> So, instead of mucking around the core sibling mask for user supplied
> value, use device-tree to set cpu capacity. And make the cpu_capacity
> node as read-only to know the asymmetry between cpus in the system.
> While at it, remove cpu_scale_mutex usage, which used for sysfs write
> protection.
>
> Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Tested-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index edfcf8d982e4..1739d7e1952a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@
>    */
>   
>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
> -#include <linux/arch_topology.h>
>   #include <linux/cpu.h>
>   #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>   #include <linux/device.h>
> @@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq,
>   		per_cpu(freq_scale, i) = scale;
>   }
>   
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpu_scale_mutex);
>   DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>   
>   void topology_set_cpu_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity)
> @@ -51,37 +49,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_capacity_show(struct device *dev,
>   static void update_topology_flags_workfn(struct work_struct *work);
>   static DECLARE_WORK(update_topology_flags_work, update_topology_flags_workfn);
>   
> -static ssize_t cpu_capacity_store(struct device *dev,
> -				  struct device_attribute *attr,
> -				  const char *buf,
> -				  size_t count)
> -{
> -	struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev);
> -	int this_cpu = cpu->dev.id;
> -	int i;
> -	unsigned long new_capacity;
> -	ssize_t ret;
> -
> -	if (!count)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &new_capacity);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	if (new_capacity > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
> -	for_each_cpu(i, &cpu_topology[this_cpu].core_sibling)
> -		topology_set_cpu_scale(i, new_capacity);
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
> -
> -	schedule_work(&update_topology_flags_work);
> -
> -	return count;
> -}
> -
> -static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(cpu_capacity);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(cpu_capacity);
>   
>   static int register_cpu_capacity_sysctl(void)
>   {
> @@ -141,7 +109,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void)
>   		return;
>   
>   	pr_debug("cpu_capacity: capacity_scale=%u\n", capacity_scale);
> -	mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>   		pr_debug("cpu_capacity: cpu=%d raw_capacity=%u\n",
>   			 cpu, raw_capacity[cpu]);
> @@ -151,7 +118,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void)
>   		pr_debug("cpu_capacity: CPU%d cpu_capacity=%lu\n",
>   			cpu, topology_get_cpu_scale(NULL, cpu));
>   	}
> -	mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex);
>   }
>   
>   bool __init topology_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-28  6:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-28  4:47 [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-28  4:47 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-28  6:56 ` Mukesh Ojha [this message]
2019-03-28  6:56   ` Mukesh Ojha
2019-03-29 16:26 ` Greg KH
2019-03-29 16:26   ` Greg KH
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-03-27 11:57 Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-27 11:57 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-27 16:15 ` Mukesh Ojha
2019-03-27 16:15   ` Mukesh Ojha
2019-03-08 11:45 [PATCH v1] " Dietmar Eggemann
2019-03-08 12:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-08 12:38   ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar
2019-03-27 10:56   ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-27 10:56     ` Quentin Perret

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c2f0b869-826e-3d95-159f-5867ccb75a08@codeaurora.org \
    --to=mojha@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=clingutla@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.