From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH v6 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:13:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190529211340.17087-2-atish.patra@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529211340.17087-1-atish.patra@wdc.com>
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-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-29 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-29 21:13 [PATCH v6 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-05-29 21:13 ` Atish Patra [this message]
2019-05-29 23:39 ` [PATCH v6 1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Andrew F. Davis
2019-05-30 11:51 ` Morten Rasmussen
2019-05-30 12:56 ` Andrew F. Davis
2019-05-30 13:12 ` Morten Rasmussen
2019-05-31 9:41 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-05-30 21:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-05-31 9:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-05-31 9:54 ` Morten Rasmussen
2019-05-29 21:13 ` [PATCH v6 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2019-05-30 20:55 ` Jeremy Linton
2019-06-03 8:49 ` Atish Patra
2019-06-03 9:05 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-05-29 21:13 ` [PATCH v6 3/7] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2019-06-06 14:26 ` Atish Patra
2019-06-11 15:55 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-29 21:13 ` [PATCH v6 4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions Atish Patra
2019-06-06 14:25 ` Atish Patra
2019-05-29 21:13 ` [PATCH v6 5/7] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2019-06-07 5:00 ` Paul Walmsley
2019-05-29 21:13 ` [PATCH v6 6/7] base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description Atish Patra
2019-05-29 21:13 ` [PATCH v6 7/7] MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology Atish Patra
2019-05-30 21:12 ` [PATCH v6 0/7] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Jeremy Linton
2019-06-03 8:50 ` Atish Patra
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=20190529211340.17087-2-atish.patra@wdc.com \
--to=atish.patra@wdc.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=ottosabart@seberm.com \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).