Linux-RISC-V Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
WARNING: multiple messages refer to this Message-ID
From: atish.patra@wdc.com (Atish Patra)
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:46:44 -0800
Message-ID: <40f24d50-eb1b-cef6-81e2-1bc9930bcbf5@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>

On 11/15/18 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> 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?
> 
I had rebased them on top of 4.20-rc1.

> Also, you might want to run them through checkpatch next time.  There
> are several whitespace errors.
> 
Sorry I missed couple of them.
Thanks for trying to test the patches. I will send a next version as Rob 
suggested. Please test that.


Regards,
Atish

From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
To: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
	"juri.lelli@arm.com" <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	"anup@brainfault.org" <anup@brainfault.org>,
	"palmer@sifive.com" <palmer@sifive.com>,
	"jeremy.linton@arm.com" <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	"mick@ics.forth.gr" <mick@ics.forth.gr>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:46:44 -0800
Message-ID: <40f24d50-eb1b-cef6-81e2-1bc9930bcbf5@wdc.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20181119174644.eGZTHqA047PPRq0Hi6tdpH0OrJ9uV6QbOhgQy-la9ZM@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>

On 11/15/18 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> 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?
> 
I had rebased them on top of 4.20-rc1.

> Also, you might want to run them through checkpatch next time.  There
> are several whitespace errors.
> 
Sorry I missed couple of them.
Thanks for trying to test the patches. I will send a next version as Rob 
suggested. Please test that.


Regards,
Atish

_______________________________________________
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 ` [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V jhugo
2018-11-15 18:31   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-19 17:46   ` atish.patra [this message]
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=40f24d50-eb1b-cef6-81e2-1bc9930bcbf5@wdc.com \
    --to=atish.patra@wdc.com \
    --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