All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: 王擎 <wangqing@vivo.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] arm64: add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency on ACPI
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:25:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220426132511.7zo4w42kauvrq26n@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SL2PR06MB3082F1AEE684E638C1B5F226BDFB9@SL2PR06MB3082.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 06:52:34AM +0000, 王擎 wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> >> From: Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> cluster sched_domain configured by cpu_topology[].cluster_sibling, 
> >> >> >> which is set by cluster_id, cluster_id can only get from ACPI.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> If the system does not enable ACPI, cluster_id is always -1, even enable
> >> >> >> SCHED_CLUSTER is invalid, this is misleading. 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> So we add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency on ACPI here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any reason why this can't be extended to support DT based systems via
> >> >> >cpu-map in the device tree. IMO we almost have everything w.r.t topology
> >> >> >in DT and no reason to deviate this feature between ACPI and DT.
> >> >> >
> >> >> That's the problem, we parse out "cluster" info according to the
> >> >> description in cpu-map, but do assign it to package_id, which used to
> >> >> configure the MC sched domain, not cluster sched domain.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Right, we haven't updated the code after updating the bindings to match
> >> >ACPI sockets which are the physical package boundaries. Clusters are not
> >> >the physical boundaries and the current topology code is not 100% aligned
> >> >with the bindings after Commit 849b384f92bc ("Documentation: DT: arm: add
> >> >support for sockets defining package boundaries")
> >>
> >> I see, but this commit is a long time ago, why hasn't it been used widely.
> >> Maybe I can help about it if you need.
> >>
> >
> >I assume no one cared or had a requirement for the same.
> 
> It took me a while to find the root cause why enabling SCHED_CLUSTER
> didn't work.
> 
> We should add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency before implementation.
> Otherwise, everyone who doesn't have ACPI but use SCHED_CLUSTER 
> will have this problem.
> 

I am fine with that or mark it broken for DT, but ideally I wouldn't
want to create unnecessary dependency on ACPI or DT when both supports
the feature.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: 王擎 <wangqing@vivo.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] arm64: add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency on ACPI
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:25:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220426132511.7zo4w42kauvrq26n@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SL2PR06MB3082F1AEE684E638C1B5F226BDFB9@SL2PR06MB3082.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 06:52:34AM +0000, 王擎 wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> >> From: Wang Qing <wangqing@vivo.com>
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> cluster sched_domain configured by cpu_topology[].cluster_sibling, 
> >> >> >> which is set by cluster_id, cluster_id can only get from ACPI.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> If the system does not enable ACPI, cluster_id is always -1, even enable
> >> >> >> SCHED_CLUSTER is invalid, this is misleading. 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> So we add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency on ACPI here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Any reason why this can't be extended to support DT based systems via
> >> >> >cpu-map in the device tree. IMO we almost have everything w.r.t topology
> >> >> >in DT and no reason to deviate this feature between ACPI and DT.
> >> >> >
> >> >> That's the problem, we parse out "cluster" info according to the
> >> >> description in cpu-map, but do assign it to package_id, which used to
> >> >> configure the MC sched domain, not cluster sched domain.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Right, we haven't updated the code after updating the bindings to match
> >> >ACPI sockets which are the physical package boundaries. Clusters are not
> >> >the physical boundaries and the current topology code is not 100% aligned
> >> >with the bindings after Commit 849b384f92bc ("Documentation: DT: arm: add
> >> >support for sockets defining package boundaries")
> >>
> >> I see, but this commit is a long time ago, why hasn't it been used widely.
> >> Maybe I can help about it if you need.
> >>
> >
> >I assume no one cared or had a requirement for the same.
> 
> It took me a while to find the root cause why enabling SCHED_CLUSTER
> didn't work.
> 
> We should add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency before implementation.
> Otherwise, everyone who doesn't have ACPI but use SCHED_CLUSTER 
> will have this problem.
> 

I am fine with that or mark it broken for DT, but ideally I wouldn't
want to create unnecessary dependency on ACPI or DT when both supports
the feature.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

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

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-26 13:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-25  2:55 [PATCH V2] arm64: add SCHED_CLUSTER's dependency on ACPI Qing Wang
2022-04-25  2:55 ` Qing Wang
2022-04-25 10:06 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-25 10:06   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-25 11:18   ` 王擎
2022-04-25 11:18     ` 王擎
2022-04-25 16:59     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-25 16:59       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-26  2:23       ` 王擎
2022-04-26  2:23         ` 王擎
2022-04-26  6:40         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-26  6:40           ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-26  6:52           ` 王擎
2022-04-26  6:52             ` 王擎
2022-04-26 13:25             ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2022-04-26 13:25               ` Sudeep Holla
2022-04-26 19:14               ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-26 19:14                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-27  2:18                 ` 王擎
2022-04-27  2:18                   ` 王擎
2022-04-27 15:47                   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-27 15:47                     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2022-04-28  0:04                     ` 王擎
2022-04-28  0:04                       ` 王擎

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=20220426132511.7zo4w42kauvrq26n@bogus \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=wangqing@vivo.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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.