Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V 
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
                   ` (6 more replies)
  0 siblings, 7 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv, Ingo Molnar,
	Anup Patel, Russell King, Morten Rasmussen, devicetree,
	Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron,
	Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel, Atish Patra,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, Jeremy Linton, Otto Sabart, Sudeep Holla,
	David S. Miller

The cpu-map DT entry in ARM can describe the CPU topology in much better
way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can easily adopt this
binding to represent its own CPU topology. Thus, both cpu-map DT
binding and topology parsing code can be moved to a common location so
that RISC-V or any other architecture can leverage that.

The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be found in
[1].

arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common code. I
have not introduced any significant functional changes in the moved code.
The only downside in this approach is that the capacity code will be
executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit immediately after not
able to find the appropriate DT node. If the overhead is considered too
much, we can always compile out capacity related functions under a
different config for the architectures that do not support them.

There was an opportunity to unify topology data structure for ARM32 done
by patch 3/4. But, I refrained from making any other changes as I am not
very well versed with original intention for some functions that
are present in arch_topology.c. I hope this patch series can be served
as a baseline for such changes in the future.

The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for ARM64,
ARM32 & x86.

From Jeremy,

"I applied these to 5.2rc2, along with my PPTT/MT change and verified the 
system & scheduler topology/etc on DAWN and ThunderX2 using ACPI on arm64.
They appear to be working correctly.

so for the series,
Tested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>"

The socket change[2] is also now part of this series.

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/7/918

QEMU changes for RISC-V topology are available at

https://github.com/atishp04/qemu/tree/riscv_topology_dt

HiFive Unleashed DT with topology node is available here.
https://github.com/atishp04/opensbi/tree/HiFive_unleashed_topology

It can be verified with OpenSBI with following additional compile time
option.

FW_PAYLOAD_FDT="unleashed_topology.dtb"

Changes from v6->v7
1. Added socket to HiFive Unleashed topology example.
2. Added Acked-by & Reviewed-by.

Changes from v5->v6
1. Added two more patches from Sudeep about maintainership of arch_topology.c
   and Kconfig update.
2. Added Tested-by & Reviewed-by
3. Fixed a nit (reordering of variables)

Changes from v4-v5
1. Removed the arch_topology.h header inclusion from topology.c and arch_topology.c
file. Added it in linux/topology.h.
2. core_id is set to -1 upon reset. Otherwise, ARM topology store function does not
work.

Changes from v3->v4
1. Get rid of ARM32 specific information in topology structure.
2. Remove redundant functions from ARM32 and use common code instead. 

Changes from v2->v3
1. Cover letter update with experiment DT for topology changes.
2. Added the patch for [2].

Changes from v1->v2
1. ARM32 can now use the common code as well.

Atish Patra (4):
dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding.
cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.
RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot.

Sudeep Holla (3):
Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package
boundaries
base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description
MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology

.../topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt}     | 136 ++++++--
MAINTAINERS                                   |   7 +
arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h               |  20 --
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c                    |  60 +---
arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h             |  23 --
arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c                  | 303 +-----------------
arch/riscv/Kconfig                            |   1 +
arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c                   |   3 +
drivers/base/Kconfig                          |   2 +-
drivers/base/arch_topology.c                  | 298 +++++++++++++++++
include/linux/arch_topology.h                 |  26 ++
include/linux/topology.h                      |   1 +
12 files changed, 454 insertions(+), 426 deletions(-)
rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{arm/topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} (66%)

--
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-27  0:31   ` Paul Walmsley
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Atish Patra, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Rob Herring, Anup Patel, Russell King,
	Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley,
	Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel, Richard Fontana,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, Otto Sabart, Jonathan Cameron, Sudeep Holla,
	David S. Miller

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
view of how those cores and threads are grouped.

However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.

Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the
same.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt      | 52 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index b0d80c0fb265..3b8febb46dad 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ ARM topology binding description
 In an ARM system, the hierarchy of CPUs is defined through three entities that
 are used to describe the layout of physical CPUs in the system:
 
+- socket
 - cluster
 - core
 - thread
@@ -63,21 +64,23 @@ nodes are listed.
 
 	The cpu-map node's child nodes can be:
 
-	- one or more cluster nodes
+	- one or more cluster nodes or
+	- one or more socket nodes in a multi-socket system
 
 	Any other configuration is considered invalid.
 
-The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
+The cpu-map node can only contain 4 types of child nodes:
 
+- socket node
 - cluster node
 - core node
 - thread node
 
 whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
 
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
-be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
-must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (socket/cluster/core/thread) can
+only be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the
+system must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
 invalid and therefore must be ignored.
 
 ===========================================
@@ -85,26 +88,44 @@ invalid and therefore must be ignored.
 ===========================================
 
 cpu-map child nodes must follow a naming convention where the node name
-must be "clusterN", "coreN", "threadN" depending on the node type (ie
-cluster/core/thread) (where N = {0, 1, ...} is the node number; nodes which
-are siblings within a single common parent node must be given a unique and
+must be "socketN", "clusterN", "coreN", "threadN" depending on the node type
+(ie socket/cluster/core/thread) (where N = {0, 1, ...} is the node number; nodes
+which are siblings within a single common parent node must be given a unique and
 sequential N value, starting from 0).
 cpu-map child nodes which do not share a common parent node can have the same
 name (ie same number N as other cpu-map child nodes at different device tree
 levels) since name uniqueness will be guaranteed by the device tree hierarchy.
 
 ===========================================
-3 - cluster/core/thread node bindings
+3 - socket/cluster/core/thread node bindings
 ===========================================
 
-Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
+Bindings for socket/cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
+
+- socket node
+
+	 Description: must be declared within a cpu-map node, one node
+		      per physical socket in the system. A system can
+		      contain single or multiple physical socket.
+		      The association of sockets and NUMA nodes is beyond
+		      the scope of this bindings, please refer [2] for
+		      NUMA bindings.
+
+	This node is optional for a single socket system.
+
+	The socket node name must be "socketN" as described in 2.1 above.
+	A socket node can not be a leaf node.
+
+	A socket node's child nodes must be one or more cluster nodes.
+
+	Any other configuration is considered invalid.
 
 - cluster node
 
 	 Description: must be declared within a cpu-map node, one node
 		      per cluster. A system can contain several layers of
-		      clustering and cluster nodes can be contained in parent
-		      cluster nodes.
+		      clustering within a single physical socket and cluster
+		      nodes can be contained in parent cluster nodes.
 
 	The cluster node name must be "clusterN" as described in 2.1 above.
 	A cluster node can not be a leaf node.
@@ -164,13 +185,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
 4 - Example dts
 ===========================================
 
-Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
+Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in a single
+physical socket):
 
 cpus {
 	#size-cells = <0>;
 	#address-cells = <2>;
 
 	cpu-map {
+		socket0 {
 			cluster0 {
 				cluster0 {
 					core0 {
@@ -253,6 +276,7 @@ cpus {
 				};
 			};
 		};
+	};
 
 	CPU0: cpu@0 {
 		device_type = "cpu";
@@ -473,3 +497,5 @@ cpus {
 ===============================================================================
 [1] ARM Linux kernel documentation
     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
+[2] Devicetree NUMA binding description
+    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding.
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Atish Patra, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Rob Herring, Anup Patel, Russell King,
	Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley,
	Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel, Richard Fontana,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, Otto Sabart, Jonathan Cameron, Sudeep Holla,
	David S. Miller

cpu-map binding can be used to described cpu topology for both
RISC-V & ARM. It makes more sense to move the binding to document
to a common place.

The relevant discussion can be found here.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19

Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 .../topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt}     | 84 +++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
 rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{arm/topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} (86%)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
similarity index 86%
rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
index 3b8febb46dad..99918189403c 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 ===========================================
-ARM topology binding description
+CPU topology binding description
 ===========================================
 
 ===========================================
 1 - Introduction
 ===========================================
 
-In an ARM system, the hierarchy of CPUs is defined through three entities that
+In a SMP system, the hierarchy of CPUs is defined through three entities that
 are used to describe the layout of physical CPUs in the system:
 
 - socket
@@ -14,9 +14,6 @@ are used to describe the layout of physical CPUs in the system:
 - core
 - thread
 
-The cpu nodes (bindings defined in [1]) represent the devices that
-correspond to physical CPUs and are to be mapped to the hierarchy levels.
-
 The bottom hierarchy level sits at core or thread level depending on whether
 symmetric multi-threading (SMT) is supported or not.
 
@@ -25,33 +22,31 @@ threads existing in the system and map to the hierarchy level "thread" above.
 In systems where SMT is not supported "cpu" nodes represent all cores present
 in the system and map to the hierarchy level "core" above.
 
-ARM topology bindings allow one to associate cpu nodes with hierarchical groups
+CPU topology bindings allow one to associate cpu nodes with hierarchical groups
 corresponding to the system hierarchy; syntactically they are defined as device
 tree nodes.
 
-The remainder of this document provides the topology bindings for ARM, based
-on the Devicetree Specification, available from:
+Currently, only ARM/RISC-V intend to use this cpu topology binding but it may be
+used for any other architecture as well.
 
-https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
+The cpu nodes, as per bindings defined in [4], represent the devices that
+correspond to physical CPUs and are to be mapped to the hierarchy levels.
 
-If not stated otherwise, whenever a reference to a cpu node phandle is made its
-value must point to a cpu node compliant with the cpu node bindings as
-documented in [1].
 A topology description containing phandles to cpu nodes that are not compliant
-with bindings standardized in [1] is therefore considered invalid.
+with bindings standardized in [4] is therefore considered invalid.
 
 ===========================================
 2 - cpu-map node
 ===========================================
 
-The ARM CPU topology is defined within the cpu-map node, which is a direct
+The ARM/RISC-V CPU topology is defined within the cpu-map node, which is a direct
 child of the cpus node and provides a container where the actual topology
 nodes are listed.
 
 - cpu-map node
 
-	Usage: Optional - On ARM SMP systems provide CPUs topology to the OS.
-			  ARM uniprocessor systems do not require a topology
+	Usage: Optional - On SMP systems provide CPUs topology to the OS.
+			  Uniprocessor systems do not require a topology
 			  description and therefore should not define a
 			  cpu-map node.
 
@@ -494,8 +489,65 @@ cpus {
 	};
 };
 
+Example 3: HiFive Unleashed (RISC-V 64 bit, 4 core system)
+
+{
+	#address-cells = <2>;
+	#size-cells = <2>;
+	compatible = "sifive,fu540g", "sifive,fu500";
+	model = "sifive,hifive-unleashed-a00";
+
+	...
+	cpus {
+		#address-cells = <1>;
+		#size-cells = <0>;
+		cpu-map {
+			socket0 {
+				cluster0 {
+					core0 {
+						cpu = <&CPU1>;
+					};
+					core1 {
+						cpu = <&CPU2>;
+					};
+					core2 {
+						cpu0 = <&CPU2>;
+					};
+					core3 {
+						cpu0 = <&CPU3>;
+					};
+				};
+			};
+		};
+
+		CPU1: cpu@1 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
+			compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
+			reg = <0x1>;
+		}
+
+		CPU2: cpu@2 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
+			compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
+			reg = <0x2>;
+		}
+		CPU3: cpu@3 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
+			compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
+			reg = <0x3>;
+		}
+		CPU4: cpu@4 {
+			device_type = "cpu";
+			compatible = "sifive,rocket0", "riscv";
+			reg = <0x4>;
+		}
+	}
+};
 ===============================================================================
 [1] ARM Linux kernel documentation
     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
 [2] Devicetree NUMA binding description
     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
+[3] RISC-V Linux kernel documentation
+    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.txt
+[4] https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-19 17:38   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions Atish Patra
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Atish Patra, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Jeffrey Hugo, Anup Patel, Russell King,
	Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley,
	Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel,
	Richard Fontana, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Otto Sabart, Sudeep Holla,
	David S. Miller

Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
a common place instead of duplicate code.

To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
[Tested on QDF2400]
Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
[Tested on Juno and other embedded platforms.]
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h |  23 ---
 arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c      | 303 +-----------------------------
 drivers/base/arch_topology.c      | 296 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/arch_topology.h     |  28 +++
 include/linux/topology.h          |   1 +
 5 files changed, 329 insertions(+), 322 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
index 0524f2438649..a4d945db95a2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
@@ -4,29 +4,6 @@
 
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
 
-struct cpu_topology {
-	int thread_id;
-	int core_id;
-	int package_id;
-	int llc_id;
-	cpumask_t thread_sibling;
-	cpumask_t core_sibling;
-	cpumask_t llc_sibling;
-};
-
-extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
-
-#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].package_id)
-#define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
-#define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
-#define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
-#define topology_llc_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling)
-
-void init_cpu_topology(void);
-void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
-void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
-const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
-
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
 
 struct pci_bus;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
index 0825c4a856e3..6b95c91e7d67 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
@@ -14,250 +14,13 @@
 #include <linux/acpi.h>
 #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
 #include <linux/cacheinfo.h>
-#include <linux/cpu.h>
-#include <linux/cpumask.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/percpu.h>
-#include <linux/node.h>
-#include <linux/nodemask.h>
-#include <linux/of.h>
-#include <linux/sched.h>
-#include <linux/sched/topology.h>
-#include <linux/slab.h>
-#include <linux/smp.h>
-#include <linux/string.h>
 
 #include <asm/cpu.h>
 #include <asm/cputype.h>
 #include <asm/topology.h>
 
-static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
-{
-	struct device_node *cpu_node;
-	int cpu;
-
-	cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
-	if (!cpu_node)
-		return -1;
-
-	cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
-	if (cpu >= 0)
-		topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
-	else
-		pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
-
-	of_node_put(cpu_node);
-	return cpu;
-}
-
-static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
-			     int core_id)
-{
-	char name[10];
-	bool leaf = true;
-	int i = 0;
-	int cpu;
-	struct device_node *t;
-
-	do {
-		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "thread%d", i);
-		t = of_get_child_by_name(core, name);
-		if (t) {
-			leaf = false;
-			cpu = get_cpu_for_node(t);
-			if (cpu >= 0) {
-				cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
-				cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
-				cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i;
-			} else {
-				pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n",
-				       t);
-				of_node_put(t);
-				return -EINVAL;
-			}
-			of_node_put(t);
-		}
-		i++;
-	} while (t);
-
-	cpu = get_cpu_for_node(core);
-	if (cpu >= 0) {
-		if (!leaf) {
-			pr_err("%pOF: Core has both threads and CPU\n",
-			       core);
-			return -EINVAL;
-		}
-
-		cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
-		cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
-	} else if (leaf) {
-		pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for leaf core\n", core);
-		return -EINVAL;
-	}
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static int __init parse_cluster(struct device_node *cluster, int depth)
-{
-	char name[10];
-	bool leaf = true;
-	bool has_cores = false;
-	struct device_node *c;
-	static int package_id __initdata;
-	int core_id = 0;
-	int i, ret;
-
-	/*
-	 * First check for child clusters; we currently ignore any
-	 * information about the nesting of clusters and present the
-	 * scheduler with a flat list of them.
-	 */
-	i = 0;
-	do {
-		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "cluster%d", i);
-		c = of_get_child_by_name(cluster, name);
-		if (c) {
-			leaf = false;
-			ret = parse_cluster(c, depth + 1);
-			of_node_put(c);
-			if (ret != 0)
-				return ret;
-		}
-		i++;
-	} while (c);
-
-	/* Now check for cores */
-	i = 0;
-	do {
-		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "core%d", i);
-		c = of_get_child_by_name(cluster, name);
-		if (c) {
-			has_cores = true;
-
-			if (depth == 0) {
-				pr_err("%pOF: cpu-map children should be clusters\n",
-				       c);
-				of_node_put(c);
-				return -EINVAL;
-			}
-
-			if (leaf) {
-				ret = parse_core(c, package_id, core_id++);
-			} else {
-				pr_err("%pOF: Non-leaf cluster with core %s\n",
-				       cluster, name);
-				ret = -EINVAL;
-			}
-
-			of_node_put(c);
-			if (ret != 0)
-				return ret;
-		}
-		i++;
-	} while (c);
-
-	if (leaf && !has_cores)
-		pr_warn("%pOF: empty cluster\n", cluster);
-
-	if (leaf)
-		package_id++;
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static int __init parse_dt_topology(void)
-{
-	struct device_node *cn, *map;
-	int ret = 0;
-	int cpu;
-
-	cn = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
-	if (!cn) {
-		pr_err("No CPU information found in DT\n");
-		return 0;
-	}
-
-	/*
-	 * When topology is provided cpu-map is essentially a root
-	 * cluster with restricted subnodes.
-	 */
-	map = of_get_child_by_name(cn, "cpu-map");
-	if (!map)
-		goto out;
-
-	ret = parse_cluster(map, 0);
-	if (ret != 0)
-		goto out_map;
-
-	topology_normalize_cpu_scale();
-
-	/*
-	 * Check that all cores are in the topology; the SMP code will
-	 * only mark cores described in the DT as possible.
-	 */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
-		if (cpu_topology[cpu].package_id == -1)
-			ret = -EINVAL;
-
-out_map:
-	of_node_put(map);
-out:
-	of_node_put(cn);
-	return ret;
-}
-
-/*
- * cpu topology table
- */
-struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_topology);
-
-const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
-{
-	const cpumask_t *core_mask = cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu));
-
-	/* Find the smaller of NUMA, core or LLC siblings */
-	if (cpumask_subset(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling, core_mask)) {
-		/* not numa in package, lets use the package siblings */
-		core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling;
-	}
-	if (cpu_topology[cpu].llc_id != -1) {
-		if (cpumask_subset(&cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling, core_mask))
-			core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling;
-	}
-
-	return core_mask;
-}
-
-static void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
-{
-	struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo, *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
-	int cpu;
-
-	/* update core and thread sibling masks */
-	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
-		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
-
-		if (cpuid_topo->llc_id == cpu_topo->llc_id) {
-			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->llc_sibling);
-			cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->llc_sibling);
-		}
-
-		if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
-			continue;
-
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->core_sibling);
-
-		if (cpuid_topo->core_id != cpu_topo->core_id)
-			continue;
-
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->thread_sibling);
-	}
-}
-
 void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 {
 	struct cpu_topology *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
@@ -296,59 +59,19 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
 }
 
-static void clear_cpu_topology(int cpu)
-{
-	struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
-
-	cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->llc_sibling);
-	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->llc_sibling);
-
-	cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
-	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
-	cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-}
-
-static void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
-{
-	unsigned int cpu;
-
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
-
-		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
-		cpu_topo->core_id = 0;
-		cpu_topo->package_id = -1;
-		cpu_topo->llc_id = -1;
-
-		clear_cpu_topology(cpu);
-	}
-}
-
-void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpu)
-{
-	int sibling;
-
-	for_each_cpu(sibling, topology_core_cpumask(cpu))
-		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, topology_core_cpumask(sibling));
-	for_each_cpu(sibling, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu))
-		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, topology_sibling_cpumask(sibling));
-	for_each_cpu(sibling, topology_llc_cpumask(cpu))
-		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, topology_llc_cpumask(sibling));
-
-	clear_cpu_topology(cpu);
-}
-
 #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
 /*
  * Propagate the topology information of the processor_topology_node tree to the
  * cpu_topology array.
  */
-static int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
+int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
 {
 	bool is_threaded;
 	int cpu, topology_id;
 
+	if (acpi_disabled)
+		return 0;
+
 	is_threaded = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_MT_BITMASK;
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
@@ -384,24 +107,6 @@ static int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
 
 	return 0;
 }
-
-#else
-static inline int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
-{
-	return -EINVAL;
-}
 #endif
 
-void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
-{
-	reset_cpu_topology();
 
-	/*
-	 * Discard anything that was parsed if we hit an error so we
-	 * don't use partial information.
-	 */
-	if (!acpi_disabled && parse_acpi_topology())
-		reset_cpu_topology();
-	else if (of_have_populated_dt() && parse_dt_topology())
-		reset_cpu_topology();
-}
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
index 1739d7e1952a..5781bb4c457c 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
@@ -15,6 +15,11 @@
 #include <linux/string.h>
 #include <linux/sched/topology.h>
 #include <linux/cpuset.h>
+#include <linux/cpumask.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/percpu.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/smp.h>
 
 DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
 
@@ -244,3 +249,294 @@ static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
 #else
 core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
 #endif
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
+static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
+{
+	struct device_node *cpu_node;
+	int cpu;
+
+	cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
+	if (!cpu_node)
+		return -1;
+
+	cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
+	if (cpu >= 0)
+		topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
+	else
+		pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
+
+	of_node_put(cpu_node);
+	return cpu;
+}
+
+static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
+			     int core_id)
+{
+	char name[10];
+	bool leaf = true;
+	int i = 0;
+	int cpu;
+	struct device_node *t;
+
+	do {
+		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "thread%d", i);
+		t = of_get_child_by_name(core, name);
+		if (t) {
+			leaf = false;
+			cpu = get_cpu_for_node(t);
+			if (cpu >= 0) {
+				cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
+				cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
+				cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i;
+			} else {
+				pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n",
+				       t);
+				of_node_put(t);
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
+			of_node_put(t);
+		}
+		i++;
+	} while (t);
+
+	cpu = get_cpu_for_node(core);
+	if (cpu >= 0) {
+		if (!leaf) {
+			pr_err("%pOF: Core has both threads and CPU\n",
+			       core);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+
+		cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
+		cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
+	} else if (leaf) {
+		pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for leaf core\n", core);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int __init parse_cluster(struct device_node *cluster, int depth)
+{
+	char name[10];
+	bool leaf = true;
+	bool has_cores = false;
+	struct device_node *c;
+	static int package_id __initdata;
+	int core_id = 0;
+	int i, ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * First check for child clusters; we currently ignore any
+	 * information about the nesting of clusters and present the
+	 * scheduler with a flat list of them.
+	 */
+	i = 0;
+	do {
+		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "cluster%d", i);
+		c = of_get_child_by_name(cluster, name);
+		if (c) {
+			leaf = false;
+			ret = parse_cluster(c, depth + 1);
+			of_node_put(c);
+			if (ret != 0)
+				return ret;
+		}
+		i++;
+	} while (c);
+
+	/* Now check for cores */
+	i = 0;
+	do {
+		snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "core%d", i);
+		c = of_get_child_by_name(cluster, name);
+		if (c) {
+			has_cores = true;
+
+			if (depth == 0) {
+				pr_err("%pOF: cpu-map children should be clusters\n",
+				       c);
+				of_node_put(c);
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
+
+			if (leaf) {
+				ret = parse_core(c, package_id, core_id++);
+			} else {
+				pr_err("%pOF: Non-leaf cluster with core %s\n",
+				       cluster, name);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
+			}
+
+			of_node_put(c);
+			if (ret != 0)
+				return ret;
+		}
+		i++;
+	} while (c);
+
+	if (leaf && !has_cores)
+		pr_warn("%pOF: empty cluster\n", cluster);
+
+	if (leaf)
+		package_id++;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int __init parse_dt_topology(void)
+{
+	struct device_node *cn, *map;
+	int ret = 0;
+	int cpu;
+
+	cn = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
+	if (!cn) {
+		pr_err("No CPU information found in DT\n");
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * When topology is provided cpu-map is essentially a root
+	 * cluster with restricted subnodes.
+	 */
+	map = of_get_child_by_name(cn, "cpu-map");
+	if (!map)
+		goto out;
+
+	ret = parse_cluster(map, 0);
+	if (ret != 0)
+		goto out_map;
+
+	topology_normalize_cpu_scale();
+
+	/*
+	 * Check that all cores are in the topology; the SMP code will
+	 * only mark cores described in the DT as possible.
+	 */
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		if (cpu_topology[cpu].package_id == -1)
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+
+out_map:
+	of_node_put(map);
+out:
+	of_node_put(cn);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
+ * cpu topology table
+ */
+struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_topology);
+
+const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
+{
+	const cpumask_t *core_mask = cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu));
+
+	/* Find the smaller of NUMA, core or LLC siblings */
+	if (cpumask_subset(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling, core_mask)) {
+		/* not numa in package, lets use the package siblings */
+		core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling;
+	}
+	if (cpu_topology[cpu].llc_id != -1) {
+		if (cpumask_subset(&cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling, core_mask))
+			core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling;
+	}
+
+	return core_mask;
+}
+
+void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
+{
+	struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo, *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
+	int cpu;
+
+	/* update core and thread sibling masks */
+	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
+
+		if (cpuid_topo->llc_id == cpu_topo->llc_id) {
+			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->llc_sibling);
+			cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->llc_sibling);
+		}
+
+		if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
+			continue;
+
+		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
+		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->core_sibling);
+
+		if (cpuid_topo->core_id != cpu_topo->core_id)
+			continue;
+
+		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
+		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->thread_sibling);
+	}
+}
+
+static void clear_cpu_topology(int cpu)
+{
+	struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
+
+	cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->llc_sibling);
+	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->llc_sibling);
+
+	cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
+	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
+	cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
+	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
+}
+
+static void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
+{
+	unsigned int cpu;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		struct cpu_topology *cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
+
+		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
+		cpu_topo->core_id = -1;
+		cpu_topo->package_id = -1;
+		cpu_topo->llc_id = -1;
+
+		clear_cpu_topology(cpu);
+	}
+}
+
+void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+	int sibling;
+
+	for_each_cpu(sibling, topology_core_cpumask(cpu))
+		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, topology_core_cpumask(sibling));
+	for_each_cpu(sibling, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu))
+		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, topology_sibling_cpumask(sibling));
+	for_each_cpu(sibling, topology_llc_cpumask(cpu))
+		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, topology_llc_cpumask(sibling));
+
+	clear_cpu_topology(cpu);
+}
+
+__weak int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
+{
+	reset_cpu_topology();
+
+	/*
+	 * Discard anything that was parsed if we hit an error so we
+	 * don't use partial information.
+	 */
+	if (parse_acpi_topology())
+		reset_cpu_topology();
+	else if (of_have_populated_dt() && parse_dt_topology())
+		reset_cpu_topology();
+}
+#endif
diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
index d9bdc1a7f4e7..d4e76e0a283f 100644
--- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
@@ -33,4 +33,32 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
 	return per_cpu(freq_scale, cpu);
 }
 
+struct cpu_topology {
+	int thread_id;
+	int core_id;
+	int package_id;
+	int llc_id;
+	cpumask_t thread_sibling;
+	cpumask_t core_sibling;
+	cpumask_t llc_sibling;
+};
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
+extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
+
+#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].package_id)
+#define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
+#define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
+#define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
+#define topology_llc_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling)
+void init_cpu_topology(void);
+void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
+const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
+#endif
+
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
+void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpu);
+#endif
+void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
+
 #endif /* _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_ */
diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
index cb0775e1ee4b..4b3755d65812 100644
--- a/include/linux/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/topology.h
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
 #ifndef _LINUX_TOPOLOGY_H
 #define _LINUX_TOPOLOGY_H
 
+#include <linux/arch_topology.h>
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
 #include <linux/bitops.h>
 #include <linux/mmzone.h>
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-19 12:10   ` Sudeep Holla
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 5/7] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  6 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Atish Patra, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Russell King, Ingo Molnar,
	devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley,
	Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel, Richard Fontana,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, Otto Sabart, Jonathan Cameron, Sudeep Holla,
	David S. Miller

Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent
their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common
code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as
well.

Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and
reuse the common code instead.

To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2)
Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

---
Hi Russell,
Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire
series can be merged at one go.
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 20 -----------
 arch/arm/kernel/topology.c      | 60 ++++-----------------------------
 drivers/base/arch_topology.c    |  4 ++-
 include/linux/arch_topology.h   |  6 ++--
 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h
index 2a786f54d8b8..8a0fae94d45e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h
@@ -5,26 +5,6 @@
 #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
 
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
-
-struct cputopo_arm {
-	int thread_id;
-	int core_id;
-	int socket_id;
-	cpumask_t thread_sibling;
-	cpumask_t core_sibling;
-};
-
-extern struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
-
-#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id)
-#define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
-#define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
-#define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
-
-void init_cpu_topology(void);
-void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
-const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
-
 #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
 
 /* Replace task scheduler's default frequency-invariant accounting */
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
index 60e375ce1ab2..238f1da0219c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
@@ -177,17 +177,6 @@ static inline void parse_dt_topology(void) {}
 static inline void update_cpu_capacity(unsigned int cpuid) {}
 #endif
 
- /*
- * cpu topology table
- */
-struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_topology);
-
-const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
-{
-	return &cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling;
-}
-
 /*
  * The current assumption is that we can power gate each core independently.
  * This will be superseded by DT binding once available.
@@ -197,32 +186,6 @@ const struct cpumask *cpu_corepower_mask(int cpu)
 	return &cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling;
 }
 
-static void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
-{
-	struct cputopo_arm *cpu_topo, *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
-	int cpu;
-
-	/* update core and thread sibling masks */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
-
-		if (cpuid_topo->socket_id != cpu_topo->socket_id)
-			continue;
-
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
-		if (cpu != cpuid)
-			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->core_sibling);
-
-		if (cpuid_topo->core_id != cpu_topo->core_id)
-			continue;
-
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-		if (cpu != cpuid)
-			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->thread_sibling);
-	}
-	smp_wmb();
-}
-
 /*
  * store_cpu_topology is called at boot when only one cpu is running
  * and with the mutex cpu_hotplug.lock locked, when several cpus have booted,
@@ -230,7 +193,7 @@ static void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
  */
 void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 {
-	struct cputopo_arm *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
+	struct cpu_topology *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
 	unsigned int mpidr;
 
 	/* If the cpu topology has been already set, just return */
@@ -250,12 +213,12 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 			/* core performance interdependency */
 			cpuid_topo->thread_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
 			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
-			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
+			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
 		} else {
 			/* largely independent cores */
 			cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
 			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
-			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
+			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
 		}
 	} else {
 		/*
@@ -265,7 +228,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 		 */
 		cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
 		cpuid_topo->core_id = 0;
-		cpuid_topo->socket_id = -1;
+		cpuid_topo->package_id = -1;
 	}
 
 	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
@@ -275,7 +238,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 	pr_info("CPU%u: thread %d, cpu %d, socket %d, mpidr %x\n",
 		cpuid, cpu_topology[cpuid].thread_id,
 		cpu_topology[cpuid].core_id,
-		cpu_topology[cpuid].socket_id, mpidr);
+		cpu_topology[cpuid].package_id, mpidr);
 }
 
 static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
@@ -298,18 +261,7 @@ static struct sched_domain_topology_level arm_topology[] = {
  */
 void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
 {
-	unsigned int cpu;
-
-	/* init core mask and capacity */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		struct cputopo_arm *cpu_topo = &(cpu_topology[cpu]);
-
-		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
-		cpu_topo->core_id =  -1;
-		cpu_topo->socket_id = -1;
-		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
-		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-	}
+	reset_cpu_topology();
 	smp_wmb();
 
 	parse_dt_topology();
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
index 5781bb4c457c..797e3cd71bea 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
@@ -426,6 +426,7 @@ static int __init parse_dt_topology(void)
 	of_node_put(cn);
 	return ret;
 }
+#endif
 
 /*
  * cpu topology table
@@ -491,7 +492,7 @@ static void clear_cpu_topology(int cpu)
 	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
 }
 
-static void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
+void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
 {
 	unsigned int cpu;
 
@@ -526,6 +527,7 @@ __weak int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
 void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
 {
 	reset_cpu_topology();
diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
index d4e76e0a283f..d4311127970d 100644
--- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
@@ -54,11 +54,9 @@ extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
 void init_cpu_topology(void);
 void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
 const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
-#endif
-
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
 void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpu);
-#endif
 void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
+void reset_cpu_topology(void);
+#endif
 
 #endif /* _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_ */
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 5/7] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot.
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 6/7] base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology Atish Patra
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel, Russell King
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou,
	Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner,
	linux-arm-kernel, Atish Patra, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Otto Sabart,
	Sudeep Holla, David S. Miller

Currently, there are no topology defined for RISC-V.
Parse the cpu-map node from device tree and setup the
cpu topology.

CPU topology after applying the patch.
$cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/topology/core_siblings_list
0-3
$cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/core_siblings_list
0-3
$cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/physical_package_id
0
$cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/core_id
3

Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Acked-by: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
---
 arch/riscv/Kconfig          | 1 +
 arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 3 +++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 0c4b12205632..2d8a16299a85 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ config RISCV
 	select PCI_MSI if PCI
 	select RISCV_TIMER
 	select GENERIC_IRQ_MULTI_HANDLER
+	select GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY if SMP
 	select ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL
 	select ARCH_HAS_MMIOWB
 	select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if 64BIT
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
index 7462a44304fe..18ae6da5115e 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
  * Copyright (C) 2017 SiFive
  */
 
+#include <linux/arch_topology.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
@@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_running);
 
 void __init smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
 {
+	init_cpu_topology();
 }
 
 void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
@@ -138,6 +140,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init smp_callin(void)
 
 	trap_init();
 	notify_cpu_starting(smp_processor_id());
+	update_siblings_masks(smp_processor_id());
 	set_cpu_online(smp_processor_id(), 1);
 	/*
 	 * Remote TLB flushes are ignored while the CPU is offline, so emit
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 6/7] base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 5/7] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology Atish Patra
  6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Atish Patra, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Russell King, Ingo Molnar,
	devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley,
	Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel, Richard Fontana,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, Otto Sabart, Jonathan Cameron, Sudeep Holla,
	David S. Miller

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

Commit 5d777b185f6d ("arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as read-only")
made cpu_capacity sysfs node read-only. Update the GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
Kconfig help section to reflect the same.

Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 drivers/base/Kconfig | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/Kconfig b/drivers/base/Kconfig
index dc404492381d..28b92e3cc570 100644
--- a/drivers/base/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/base/Kconfig
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ config GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
 	help
 	  Enable support for architectures common topology code: e.g., parsing
 	  CPU capacity information from DT, usage of such information for
-	  appropriate scaling, sysfs interface for changing capacity values at
+	  appropriate scaling, sysfs interface for reading capacity values at
 	  runtime.
 
 endmenu
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v7 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology
  2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 6/7] base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-17 18:59 ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-19 17:37   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  6 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-17 18:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel
  Cc: Juri Lelli, Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki,
	Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Atish Patra, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv, Ingo Molnar,
	Anup Patel, Russell King, Morten Rasmussen, devicetree,
	Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Thomas Gleixner,
	linux-arm-kernel, Richard Fontana, Greg Kroah-Hartman,
	Otto Sabart, Jonathan Cameron, Sudeep Holla, David S. Miller

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

arm and arm64 shared lot of CPU topology related code. This was
consolidated under driver/base/arch_topology.c by Juri. Now RISC-V
is also started sharing the same code pulling more code from arm64
into arch_topology.c

Since I was involved in the review from the beginning, I would like
to assume maintenance for the same.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 57f496cff999..c6f7d7152f01 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -6595,6 +6595,13 @@ W:	https://linuxtv.org
 S:	Maintained
 F:	drivers/media/radio/radio-gemtek*
 
+GENERIC ARCHITECTURE TOPOLOGY
+M:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
+L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
+S:	Maintained
+F:	drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+F:	include/linux/arch_topology.h
+
 GENERIC GPIO I2C DRIVER
 M:	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
 S:	Supported
-- 
2.21.0


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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-19 12:10   ` Sudeep Holla
  2019-06-24 15:06     ` Sudeep Holla
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2019-06-19 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Atish Patra, Russell King
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou,
	Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner,
	linux-arm-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel, Otto Sabart,
	Sudeep Holla, David S. Miller

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent
> their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common
> code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as
> well.
> 
> Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and
> reuse the common code instead.
> 
> To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2)
> Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> ---
> Hi Russell,
> Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire
> series can be merged at one go.

It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there.
Are you fine with these changes ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-19 17:37   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-06-19 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Atish Patra
  Cc: Juri Lelli, Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki,
	Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv, Ingo Molnar,
	Anup Patel, Russell King, Morten Rasmussen, devicetree,
	Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron,
	Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Otto Sabart,
	Sudeep Holla, David S. Miller

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:20AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> arm and arm64 shared lot of CPU topology related code. This was
> consolidated under driver/base/arch_topology.c by Juri. Now RISC-V
> is also started sharing the same code pulling more code from arm64
> into arch_topology.c
> 
> Since I was involved in the review from the beginning, I would like
> to assume maintenance for the same.
> 
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-19 17:38   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
  2019-06-21 22:31     ` Atish Patra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2019-06-19 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Atish Patra
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Jeffrey Hugo, Anup Patel, Russell King,
	Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley,
	Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel,
	linux-kernel, Otto Sabart, Sudeep Holla, David S. Miller

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
> their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
> a common place instead of duplicate code.
> 
> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> [Tested on QDF2400]
> Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
> [Tested on Juno and other embedded platforms.]
> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
  2019-06-19 17:38   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2019-06-21 22:31     ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-23 17:51       ` Paul Walmsley
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-21 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Walmsley
  Cc: mark.rutland, rafael, peterz, catalin.marinas, linus.walleij,
	palmer, will.deacon, rfontana, mchehab+samsung, linux-riscv,
	morten.rasmussen, jhugo, anup, linux, mingo, devicetree, aou,
	robh+dt, paul.walmsley, Jonathan.Cameron, tglx, linux-arm-kernel,
	gregkh, linux-kernel, ottosabart, sudeep.holla, davem

On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 19:38 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
> > their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
> > a common place instead of duplicate code.
> > 
> > To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > [Tested on QDF2400]
> > Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
> > [Tested on Juno and other embedded platforms.]
> > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Hi Paul,
I guess Greg has acked the series assuming that it will go through some
other tree. Can you take it through RISC-V tree ?

Sorry for the confusion.

Note: We are still waiting for RMK's ACK on arm patch before it can be
sent as a PR.

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
  2019-06-21 22:31     ` Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-23 17:51       ` Paul Walmsley
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Paul Walmsley @ 2019-06-23 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Atish Patra, linux
  Cc: mark.rutland, rafael, peterz, catalin.marinas, linus.walleij,
	palmer, will.deacon, rfontana, mchehab+samsung, linux-riscv,
	morten.rasmussen, jhugo, anup, linux, mingo, devicetree, aou,
	robh+dt, Jonathan.Cameron, tglx, linux-arm-kernel, gregkh,
	linux-kernel, ottosabart, sudeep.holla, davem

Hi Atish, Russell,

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:

> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 19:38 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
> > > their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
> > > a common place instead of duplicate code.

[ ... ]

> I guess Greg has acked the series assuming that it will go through some
> other tree. Can you take it through RISC-V tree ?
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Note: We are still waiting for RMK's ACK on arm patch before it can be
> sent as a PR.

I'm fine to take it through the RISC-V tree, once Russell acks the 
arch/arm patch.


- Paul

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.
  2019-06-19 12:10   ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2019-06-24 15:06     ` Sudeep Holla
  2019-06-24 15:30       ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2019-06-24 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell King
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou,
	Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner,
	linux-arm-kernel, Atish Patra, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel,
	Otto Sabart, David S. Miller

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent
> > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common
> > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as
> > well.
> >
> > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and
> > reuse the common code instead.
> >
> > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2)
> > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> > ---
> > Hi Russell,
> > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire
> > series can be merged at one go.
>
> It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there.
> Are you fine with these changes ?
>

Do you have any objections with this patch ? We plan to merge through
RISC-V tree, please let us know. It has been acked-by all the other
maintainers.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.
  2019-06-24 15:06     ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2019-06-24 15:30       ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
  2019-06-24 15:33         ` Sudeep Holla
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin @ 2019-06-24 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sudeep Holla
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou,
	Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner,
	linux-arm-kernel, Atish Patra, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel,
	Otto Sabart, David S. Miller

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:06:58PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent
> > > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common
> > > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and
> > > reuse the common code instead.
> > >
> > > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2)
> > > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Hi Russell,
> > > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire
> > > series can be merged at one go.
> >
> > It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there.
> > Are you fine with these changes ?
> >
> 
> Do you have any objections with this patch ? We plan to merge through
> RISC-V tree, please let us know. It has been acked-by all the other
> maintainers.

I have no interest in the CPU topology code; as far as I know I have
no systems that are able to exercise this code in any way.  Therefore,
I don't know this code, I have no way to test it, and so it is not
appropriate for me to ack patches for it.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.
  2019-06-24 15:30       ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
@ 2019-06-24 15:33         ` Sudeep Holla
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2019-06-24 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Anup Patel, Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou,
	Rob Herring, Paul Walmsley, Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner,
	linux-arm-kernel, Atish Patra, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel,
	Otto Sabart, Sudeep Holla, David S. Miller

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:30:33PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:06:58PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent
> > > > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common
> > > > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and
> > > > reuse the common code instead.
> > > >
> > > > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > > > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2)
> > > > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Hi Russell,
> > > > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire
> > > > series can be merged at one go.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there.
> > > Are you fine with these changes ?
> > >
> >
> > Do you have any objections with this patch ? We plan to merge through
> > RISC-V tree, please let us know. It has been acked-by all the other
> > maintainers.
>
> I have no interest in the CPU topology code; as far as I know I have
> no systems that are able to exercise this code in any way.  Therefore,
> I don't know this code, I have no way to test it, and so it is not
> appropriate for me to ack patches for it.
>

I completely understand that and we can take care of testing. As along
as you don't have objections to this, that should be fine I believe.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries
  2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-27  0:31   ` Paul Walmsley
  2019-06-27  2:18     ` Atish Patra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Paul Walmsley @ 2019-06-27  0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sudeep Holla, Atish Patra
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Rob Herring, Anup Patel, Russell King,
	Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring,
	Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel, Otto Sabart, David S. Miller

Hi Sudeep, Atish,

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:

> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
> with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
> representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
> hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
> view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
> 
> However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
> describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
> the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
> an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.
> 
> Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the
> same.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

This one doesn't apply cleanly here on top of v5.2-rc2, Linus's master 
branch, and next-20190626.  The reject file is below.  Am I missing 
a patch?


- Paul

--- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -185,13 +206,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
 4 - Example dts
 ===========================================
 
-Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
+Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in a single
+physical socket):
 
 cpus {
 	#size-cells = <0>;
 	#address-cells = <2>;
 
 	cpu-map {
+		socket0 {
 			cluster0 {
 				cluster0 {
 					core0 {

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries
  2019-06-27  0:31   ` Paul Walmsley
@ 2019-06-27  2:18     ` Atish Patra
  2019-06-27 19:58       ` Atish Patra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-27  2:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Walmsley, Sudeep Holla
  Cc: Mark Rutland, Rafael J. Wysocki, Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\),
	Catalin Marinas, Linus Walleij, Palmer Dabbelt, Will Deacon,
	Richard Fontana, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, linux-riscv,
	Morten Rasmussen, Rob Herring, Anup Patel, Russell King,
	Ingo Molnar, devicetree, Albert Ou, Rob Herring,
	Jonathan Cameron, Thomas Gleixner, linux-arm-kernel,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel, Otto Sabart, David S. Miller

On 6/26/19 5:31 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hi Sudeep, Atish,
> 
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:
> 
>> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>
>> The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
>> with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
>> representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
>> hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
>> view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
>>
>> However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
>> describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
>> the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
>> an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.
>>
>> Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the
>> same.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> 
> This one doesn't apply cleanly here on top of v5.2-rc2, Linus's master
> branch, and next-20190626.  The reject file is below.  Am I missing
> a patch?
> 

That's weird. I could apply the patch from any git tree (github or 
git.kernel.org) but not from mail or patchworks.

git log doesn't show any recent modifications of that file. I am trying 
to figure out what's wrong.
> 
> - Paul
> 
> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -185,13 +206,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
>   4 - Example dts
>   ===========================================
>   
> -Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
> +Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in a single
> +physical socket):
>   
>   cpus {
>   	#size-cells = <0>;
>   	#address-cells = <2>;
>   
>   	cpu-map {
> +		socket0 {
>   			cluster0 {
>   				cluster0 {
>   					core0 {
> 


-- 
Regards,
Atish

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries
  2019-06-27  2:18     ` Atish Patra
@ 2019-06-27 19:58       ` Atish Patra
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Atish Patra @ 2019-06-27 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paul.walmsley, sudeep.holla
  Cc: mark.rutland, rafael, peterz, catalin.marinas, linus.walleij,
	palmer, will.deacon, rfontana, mchehab+samsung, linux-riscv,
	morten.rasmussen, robh, anup, linux, mingo, devicetree, aou,
	robh+dt, Jonathan.Cameron, tglx, linux-arm-kernel, gregkh,
	linux-kernel, ottosabart, davem

On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 19:18 -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> On 6/26/19 5:31 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > Hi Sudeep, Atish,
> > 
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > 
> > > The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating
> > > system
> > > with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
> > > representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
> > > hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical
> > > topology
> > > view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
> > > 
> > > However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not
> > > allow to
> > > describe what topology level actually represents the physical
> > > package or
> > > the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be
> > > used by
> > > an operating system to optimize resource allocation and
> > > scheduling.
> > > 
> > > Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe
> > > the
> > > same.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > 
> > This one doesn't apply cleanly here on top of v5.2-rc2, Linus's
> > master
> > branch, and next-20190626.  The reject file is below.  Am I missing
> > a patch?
> > 
> 
> That's weird. I could apply the patch from any git tree (github or 
> git.kernel.org) but not from mail or patchworks.
> 
> git log doesn't show any recent modifications of that file. I am
> trying 
> to figure out what's wrong.

The space changes in this patch caused the conflict. The patch was
generated with -b which was suggested during the initial review. 

I should removed it before sending v7. My bad.
I have fixed that and sent a v8 that should be cleanly applied on
latest master. The patch series is also available at 

https://github.com/atishp04/linux/tree/5.2-rc6_topology

Regards,
Atish
> > - Paul
> > 
> > --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> > +++ Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> > @@ -185,13 +206,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are
> > defined as follows:
> >   4 - Example dts
> >   ===========================================
> >   
> > -Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
> > +Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in
> > a single
> > +physical socket):
> >   
> >   cpus {
> >   	#size-cells = <0>;
> >   	#address-cells = <2>;
> >   
> >   	cpu-map {
> > +		socket0 {
> >   			cluster0 {
> >   				cluster0 {
> >   					core0 {
> > 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-17 18:59 [PATCH v7 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
2019-06-27  0:31   ` Paul Walmsley
2019-06-27  2:18     ` Atish Patra
2019-06-27 19:58       ` Atish Patra
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2019-06-19 17:38   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-06-21 22:31     ` Atish Patra
2019-06-23 17:51       ` Paul Walmsley
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions Atish Patra
2019-06-19 12:10   ` Sudeep Holla
2019-06-24 15:06     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-06-24 15:30       ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-06-24 15:33         ` Sudeep Holla
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 5/7] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 6/7] base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description Atish Patra
2019-06-17 18:59 ` [PATCH v7 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology Atish Patra
2019-06-19 17:37   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman

Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/0 linux-arm-kernel/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1 linux-arm-kernel/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-arm-kernel linux-arm-kernel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel \
		linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
	public-inbox-index linux-arm-kernel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git