Linux-RISC-V Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
WARNING: multiple messages refer to this Message-ID
From: jhugo@codeaurora.org (Jeffrey Hugo)
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:31:33 -0700
Message-ID: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541728209-3224-1-git-send-email-atish.patra@wdc.com>

On 11/8/2018 6:50 PM, Atish Patra wrote:
> The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in
> much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can
> easily adopt this binding to represent it's 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 functional changes in the moved
> to 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.
> 
> The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for
> ARM64.
> 
> The socket changes[2] can be merged on top of this series or vice
> versa.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/7/918
> 
> Atish Patra (3):
>    dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding.
>    cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
>    RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot.
> 
>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 475 -------------------
>   .../devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt       | 526 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h                  |  23 +-
>   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c                       | 305 +-----------
>   arch/riscv/Kconfig                                 |   1 +
>   arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c                        |   6 +-
>   drivers/base/arch_topology.c                       | 303 ++++++++++++
>   include/linux/arch_topology.h                      |  23 +
>   include/linux/topology.h                           |   1 +
>   9 files changed, 864 insertions(+), 799 deletions(-)
>   delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
> 

I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since 
this series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. 
However, I can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. 
Different patches cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I 
attempted.

What are these intended to apply to?

Also, you might want to run them through checkpatch next time.  There 
are several whitespace errors.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

From: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com, juri.lelli@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org,
	palmer@sifive.com, jeremy.linton@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, mick@ics.forth.gr,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:31:33 -0700
Message-ID: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20181115183133.ek03hSxJIRLj5o9AG6jdZegEz5z3YxiOH8SFQatTnqk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541728209-3224-1-git-send-email-atish.patra@wdc.com>

On 11/8/2018 6:50 PM, Atish Patra wrote:
> The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in
> much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can
> easily adopt this binding to represent it's 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 functional changes in the moved
> to 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.
> 
> The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for
> ARM64.
> 
> The socket changes[2] can be merged on top of this series or vice
> versa.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/7/918
> 
> Atish Patra (3):
>    dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding.
>    cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
>    RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot.
> 
>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 475 -------------------
>   .../devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt       | 526 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h                  |  23 +-
>   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c                       | 305 +-----------
>   arch/riscv/Kconfig                                 |   1 +
>   arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c                        |   6 +-
>   drivers/base/arch_topology.c                       | 303 ++++++++++++
>   include/linux/arch_topology.h                      |  23 +
>   include/linux/topology.h                           |   1 +
>   9 files changed, 864 insertions(+), 799 deletions(-)
>   delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt
> 

I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since 
this series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. 
However, I can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. 
Different patches cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I 
attempted.

What are these intended to apply to?

Also, you might want to run them through checkpatch next time.  There 
are several whitespace errors.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

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

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-09  1:50 atish.patra
2018-11-09  1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09  1:50 ` [RFC 1/3] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding atish.patra
2018-11-09  1:50   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-17 16:32   ` robh
2018-11-17 16:32     ` Rob Herring
2018-11-19 17:57     ` atish.patra
2018-11-19 17:57       ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09  1:50 ` [RFC 2/3] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code atish.patra
2018-11-09  1:50   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09  1:50 ` [RFC 3/3] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot atish.patra
2018-11-09  1:50   ` Atish Patra
2018-11-15 18:31 ` jhugo [this message]
2018-11-15 18:31   ` [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-19 17:46   ` atish.patra
2018-11-19 17:46     ` Atish Patra
2018-11-20 11:11   ` sudeep.holla
2018-11-20 11:11     ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 15:28     ` jhugo
2018-11-20 15:28       ` Jeffrey Hugo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org \
    --to=jhugo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

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

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-RISC-V Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/0 linux-riscv/git/0.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-riscv linux-riscv/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv \
		linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org infradead-linux-riscv@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-riscv


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


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