All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	atishp@atishpatra.org, atishp@rivosinc.com,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	wangqing@vivo.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	ionela.voinescu@arm.com, pierre.gondois@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, gshan@redhat.com,
	Valentina.FernandezAlanis@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/19] arch_topology: Use the last level cache information from the cacheinfo
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:12:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220629191250.mg3dybgl6hnlnqee@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88ef07ea-fbde-b997-6c0c-99f5fb7be201@microchip.com>

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:56:29PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 19:47, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:18:25PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2022 18:49, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>
> >>> On 27/06/2022 17:50, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>>
> >>>> The cacheinfo is now initialised early along with the CPU topology
> >>>> initialisation. Instead of relying on the LLC ID information parsed
> >>>> separately only with ACPI PPTT elsewhere, migrate to use the similar
> >>>> information from the cacheinfo.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is generic for both DT and ACPI systems. The ACPI LLC ID information
> >>>> parsed separately can now be removed from arch specific code.
> >>>
> >>> Hey Sudeep,
> >>> I bisected broken boot on PolarFire SoC to this patch in next-20220629 :/
> >>> I suspect the issue is a missing "next-level-cache" in the the dt:
> >>> arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs.dtsi
> > 
> > Good that I included this in -next, I had not received any feedback from
> > RISC-V even after 5 iterations.
> 
> I'll be honest, I saw the titles and CC list and made some incorrect
> assumptions as to whether looking at it was worthwhile! I am not at
> this all too long and what is/isn't important to look at often is not
> obvious to me.

No worries, that's why I thought better to include in -next to get some
attention and I did get it this time, hurray! 😄

> But hey, our CI boots -next every day for a reason ;)
>

Good to know and that is really great. Anyways let me know if the diff I sent
helps. I strongly suspect that is the reason, but I may be wrong.

> > I also see this DTS is very odd. It also
> > states CPU0 doesn't have L1-D$ while the other 4 CPUs have L1-D$. Is that
> > a mistake or is it the reality ?
> 
> AFAIK, reality. It's the same for the SiFive fu540 (with which this shares
> a core complex. See page 12:
> https://static.dev.sifive.com/FU540-C000-v1.0.pdf
> 
> > Another breakage in userspace cacheinfo
> > sysfs entry of cpu0 has both I$ and D$.
> 
> Could you clarify what this means please?

Ignore me if the cpu0 really doesn't have L1-D$. However the userspace
sysfs cacheinfo is incomplete without linking L2, so it can be considered
as wrong info presented to the user.

Check /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<n>/cache/index<i>/*.
L2 won't be present there as the link with next-level-cache is missing.
So userspace can interpret this as absence of L2.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	atishp@atishpatra.org, atishp@rivosinc.com,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	wangqing@vivo.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	ionela.voinescu@arm.com, pierre.gondois@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, gshan@redhat.com,
	Valentina.FernandezAlanis@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/19] arch_topology: Use the last level cache information from the cacheinfo
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:12:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220629191250.mg3dybgl6hnlnqee@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88ef07ea-fbde-b997-6c0c-99f5fb7be201@microchip.com>

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:56:29PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 19:47, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:18:25PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2022 18:49, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>
> >>> On 27/06/2022 17:50, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>>
> >>>> The cacheinfo is now initialised early along with the CPU topology
> >>>> initialisation. Instead of relying on the LLC ID information parsed
> >>>> separately only with ACPI PPTT elsewhere, migrate to use the similar
> >>>> information from the cacheinfo.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is generic for both DT and ACPI systems. The ACPI LLC ID information
> >>>> parsed separately can now be removed from arch specific code.
> >>>
> >>> Hey Sudeep,
> >>> I bisected broken boot on PolarFire SoC to this patch in next-20220629 :/
> >>> I suspect the issue is a missing "next-level-cache" in the the dt:
> >>> arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs.dtsi
> > 
> > Good that I included this in -next, I had not received any feedback from
> > RISC-V even after 5 iterations.
> 
> I'll be honest, I saw the titles and CC list and made some incorrect
> assumptions as to whether looking at it was worthwhile! I am not at
> this all too long and what is/isn't important to look at often is not
> obvious to me.

No worries, that's why I thought better to include in -next to get some
attention and I did get it this time, hurray! 😄

> But hey, our CI boots -next every day for a reason ;)
>

Good to know and that is really great. Anyways let me know if the diff I sent
helps. I strongly suspect that is the reason, but I may be wrong.

> > I also see this DTS is very odd. It also
> > states CPU0 doesn't have L1-D$ while the other 4 CPUs have L1-D$. Is that
> > a mistake or is it the reality ?
> 
> AFAIK, reality. It's the same for the SiFive fu540 (with which this shares
> a core complex. See page 12:
> https://static.dev.sifive.com/FU540-C000-v1.0.pdf
> 
> > Another breakage in userspace cacheinfo
> > sysfs entry of cpu0 has both I$ and D$.
> 
> Could you clarify what this means please?

Ignore me if the cpu0 really doesn't have L1-D$. However the userspace
sysfs cacheinfo is incomplete without linking L2, so it can be considered
as wrong info presented to the user.

Check /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<n>/cache/index<i>/*.
L2 won't be present there as the link with next-level-cache is missing.
So userspace can interpret this as absence of L2.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	atishp@atishpatra.org, atishp@rivosinc.com,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	wangqing@vivo.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	ionela.voinescu@arm.com, pierre.gondois@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, gshan@redhat.com,
	Valentina.FernandezAlanis@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/19] arch_topology: Use the last level cache information from the cacheinfo
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:12:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220629191250.mg3dybgl6hnlnqee@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88ef07ea-fbde-b997-6c0c-99f5fb7be201@microchip.com>

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:56:29PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 19:47, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:18:25PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2022 18:49, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>
> >>> On 27/06/2022 17:50, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>>
> >>>> The cacheinfo is now initialised early along with the CPU topology
> >>>> initialisation. Instead of relying on the LLC ID information parsed
> >>>> separately only with ACPI PPTT elsewhere, migrate to use the similar
> >>>> information from the cacheinfo.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is generic for both DT and ACPI systems. The ACPI LLC ID information
> >>>> parsed separately can now be removed from arch specific code.
> >>>
> >>> Hey Sudeep,
> >>> I bisected broken boot on PolarFire SoC to this patch in next-20220629 :/
> >>> I suspect the issue is a missing "next-level-cache" in the the dt:
> >>> arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs.dtsi
> > 
> > Good that I included this in -next, I had not received any feedback from
> > RISC-V even after 5 iterations.
> 
> I'll be honest, I saw the titles and CC list and made some incorrect
> assumptions as to whether looking at it was worthwhile! I am not at
> this all too long and what is/isn't important to look at often is not
> obvious to me.

No worries, that's why I thought better to include in -next to get some
attention and I did get it this time, hurray! 😄

> But hey, our CI boots -next every day for a reason ;)
>

Good to know and that is really great. Anyways let me know if the diff I sent
helps. I strongly suspect that is the reason, but I may be wrong.

> > I also see this DTS is very odd. It also
> > states CPU0 doesn't have L1-D$ while the other 4 CPUs have L1-D$. Is that
> > a mistake or is it the reality ?
> 
> AFAIK, reality. It's the same for the SiFive fu540 (with which this shares
> a core complex. See page 12:
> https://static.dev.sifive.com/FU540-C000-v1.0.pdf
> 
> > Another breakage in userspace cacheinfo
> > sysfs entry of cpu0 has both I$ and D$.
> 
> Could you clarify what this means please?

Ignore me if the cpu0 really doesn't have L1-D$. However the userspace
sysfs cacheinfo is incomplete without linking L2, so it can be considered
as wrong info presented to the user.

Check /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<n>/cache/index<i>/*.
L2 won't be present there as the link with next-level-cache is missing.
So userspace can interpret this as absence of L2.

-- 
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:[~2022-06-29 19:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 144+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-27 16:50 [PATCH v5 00/19] arch_topology: Updates to add socket support and fix cluster ids Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 01/19] ACPI: PPTT: Use table offset as fw_token instead of virtual address Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 02/19] cacheinfo: Use of_cpu_device_node_get instead cpu_dev->of_node Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 03/19] cacheinfo: Add helper to access any cache index for a given CPU Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 04/19] cacheinfo: Move cache_leaves_are_shared out of CONFIG_OF Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 05/19] cacheinfo: Add support to check if last level cache(LLC) is valid or shared Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 06/19] cacheinfo: Allow early detection and population of cache attributes Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 07/19] cacheinfo: Use cache identifiers to check if the caches are shared if available Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 08/19] arch_topology: Add support to parse and detect cache attributes Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 09/19] arch_topology: Use the last level cache information from the cacheinfo Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 17:49   ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 17:49     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 17:49     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:18     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:18       ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:18       ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:33       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:33         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:33         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:42       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:42         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:42         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:39         ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:39           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:39           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:54           ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:54             ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:54             ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 20:32             ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 20:32               ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 20:32               ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 23:25               ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 23:25                 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 23:25                 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 10:39                 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 10:39                   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 10:39                   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 16:37                   ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 16:37                     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 16:37                     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 17:35                     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 17:35                       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 17:35                       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 19:20                       ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 19:20                         ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 19:20                         ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 20:07                         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 20:07                           ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 20:07                           ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 20:13                           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 20:13                             ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 20:13                             ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 20:21                             ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 20:21                               ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 20:21                               ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-30 22:07                               ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 22:07                                 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-30 22:07                                 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-01 11:11                                 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-01 11:11                                   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-01 11:11                                   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-01 14:47                                   ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-01 14:47                                     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-01 14:47                                     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:47       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:47         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:47         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:56         ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:56           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:56           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:12           ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2022-06-29 19:12             ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:12             ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:25             ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:25               ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:25               ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:43               ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:43                 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:43                 ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 19:52                 ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:52                   ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 19:52                   ` Conor.Dooley
2022-06-29 18:29     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:29       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 18:29       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 10/19] arm64: topology: Remove redundant setting of llc_id in CPU topology Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 11/19] arch_topology: Drop LLC identifier stash from the " Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 12/19] arch_topology: Set thread sibling cpumask only within the cluster Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 13/19] arch_topology: Check for non-negative value rather than -1 for IDs validity Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 14/19] arch_topology: Avoid parsing through all the CPUs once a outlier CPU is found Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 15/19] arch_topology: Don't set cluster identifier as physical package identifier Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 16/19] arch_topology: Limit span of cpu_clustergroup_mask() Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-28 10:28   ` Vincent Guittot
2022-06-28 10:28     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-06-28 10:28     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 17/19] arch_topology: Set cluster identifier in each core/thread from /cpu-map Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 18/19] arch_topology: Add support for parsing sockets in /cpu-map Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50 ` [PATCH v5 19/19] arch_topology: Warn that topology for nested clusters is not supported Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-27 16:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 13:06 ` [PATCH] ACPI: Remove the unused find_acpi_cpu_cache_topology() Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 13:06   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 13:06   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-06-29 13:50   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-06-29 13:50     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-06-29 13:50     ` Rafael J. Wysocki

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=20220629191250.mg3dybgl6hnlnqee@bogus \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=Conor.Dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=Valentina.FernandezAlanis@microchip.com \
    --cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
    --cc=atishp@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=gshan@redhat.com \
    --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=wangqing@vivo.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.