From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDF74C43334 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:45:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Cc:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From: In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=NktDEq6dLDsJn11EpdWz5lK/bJ6I9UBXxfjTb/urYcg=; b=KtuezKQNp8Cri1 vERX+HfIuzTTKL9leP0EjKGrdQ2e5lz6cw/hslRr3V0C+BXBpzSPF9weGcZtxtHQC/rmFyLMeiWRh mYyyv6xTyL6oXys06mFfc8rOQlGoqgJ2nItyLkrf2b3IHrsRE0WVHHClYWnf65g5VmDc7dbp10XhM 9mf+rRHCE90WYn4da+6c9YLGRqOWJWN9pYf6oTtvgaPt+SIkLIXTueBm4N5FxC/dgqgwDXInisyMW jdELmWugIOFpCix1oNLEcCWDLHNZi1S4MloTw6dax0bTSmiR5/g8NLuYr9Qsr5SzdMKkC4/C2O9I7 mlyXR4CQ4l2AYNF8AH+A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1o1blk-00Gixo-2i; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:45:48 +0000 Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1o1blh-00Givb-At for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:45:47 +0000 Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id p13so23045365ybm.1 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:45:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X8+a2zZKIj/GtmJwqSU0W0MYPsjmVC81gP6O4UILy8o=; b=XJnEYrchJw1Rq4K5WVjj7rOzvRPpNcNN1PQ9tSQfa2mwqPWQvqYrJmRQsqkT+SYSrJ WjLbN9YHasQIXtLcYr/dbvtQg47a42VWIaLJCt9aQSC382uStfHdNaOWZydyAFUl2o2w bcCrCZflksICSsl6dPkg1PD50oNnFImak6uzMlrTJ4y6jlIHlCs5wrterWRjk91Tg58V fuFbX09HHdPLtB7idWYkSLDBa71Cd/2j4QgMhjeD/T4YGse+VrNlmKlC8qf/SDR8aPmu yWQkauon+RqSgnzg7nNR250SpKVcd17669CfwbRI2kFMA1QwhfjjUO52p0xqiLV5GvE+ Qg5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X8+a2zZKIj/GtmJwqSU0W0MYPsjmVC81gP6O4UILy8o=; b=OtbXA6nf4EUaDoYenucB6rBEkR4mlvfnEiK3UpyeFH0cwLGYLhJDMJg8QNKsg/Kvnu Cum2Y8CxDqbNyalPtkrc5fhF1sJd21bd7dKmBdWo9nVG955kQZqGP/QLLrm9J0hSs2co s5dD03O++p96Z0oJN9ssyAdswiPVWQuFyk5ZIEK2gxuxSHLPqeNFq0tkAvPLyFjGvVFx S1fwoOyCg7Zvo73WErB8c4x/Ab1uU+WUG6dckXAbqukYSqyc5o9SalfInxLh5yp7RaN8 UotCT1p1x+YJ1a3SLTST4vDZwXymEtaG7npdyUtgeD/gzbxdEwN4Ubzd2lTyIweJ2N4I qPQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+hvyx/7HR8hADPNav1cDqHJcatb/Yvm7wfVKd2f0JN5QyIw7bW zbncOGJAHJBldC5zXiLkDmcQDN8bnZMlnayUB6tY7PAGrOM2zg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s8FY2JLJ8TIScIkSnOgk4Fe+EfkTNwdHsakv9y09Lu53/E22zOkARaMvgTwZauohkpcn6k3wuHT1ndZvFuLRA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:bed0:0:b0:664:b4af:5bc9 with SMTP id k16-20020a25bed0000000b00664b4af5bc9mr2281060ybm.424.1655333141514; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:45:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220525081416.3306043-12-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20220525081416.3306043-13-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20220525081416.3306043-14-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20220525081416.3306043-15-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20220525081416.3306043-16-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <947470ba-35fc-3c72-d01b-c0a7337216a2@arm.com> <20220606102159.dduxmvq4m2fm6gks@bogus> <20220610102753.virkx47uyfsojol6@bogus> <20220615170033.q4og4pnmpwdg3l2g@bogus> In-Reply-To: <20220615170033.q4og4pnmpwdg3l2g@bogus> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:45:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] arch_topology: Set cluster identifier in each core/thread from /cpu-map To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Dietmar Eggemann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Atish Patra , Atish Patra , Morten Rasmussen , Qing Wang , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220615_154545_449252_019C11D9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 57.13 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 19:01, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > Please note until we agree on unified view for hardware topology, I will > temporarily ignore any scheduler domain related issues/concerns as this > thread/discussion is mixing up too much IMO. I am not ignoring sched_domain > concerns, but deferring it until we agree on the hardware topology view > which is user visible and how that impacts sched domain topology can be > considered soon following that. On my side, what i'm really interested in, it's the hardware topology reported to the scheduler > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 07:59:23PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 12:27, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:08:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 12:22, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Why ? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't present the hardware cluster > > > > > to the topology because of the above reason ? If so, sorry that is not a > > > > > valid reason. We could add login to return NULL or appropriate value > > > > > needed in cpu_clustergroup_mask id it matches MC level mask if we can't > > > > > deal that in generic scheduler code. But the topology code can't be > > > > > compromised for that reason as it is user visible. > > > > > > > > I tend to agree with Dietmar. The legacy use of cluster node in DT > > > > refers to the dynamiQ or legacy b.L cluster which is also aligned to > > > > the LLC and the MC scheduling level. The new cluster level that has > > > > been introduced recently does not target this level but some > > > > intermediate levels either inside like for the kupeng920 or the v9 > > > > complex or outside like for the ampere altra. So I would say that > > > > there is one cluster node level in DT that refers to the same MC/LLC > > > > level and only an additional child/parent cluster node should be used > > > > to fill the clustergroup_mask. > > > > > > > > > > Again I completely disagree. Let us look at the problems separately. > > > The hardware topology that some of the tools like lscpu and lstopo expects > > > what the hardware looks like and not the scheduler's view of the hardware. > > > So the topology masks that gets exposed to the user-space needs fixing > > > even today. I have reports from various tooling people about the same. > > > E.g. Juno getting exposed as dual socket system is utter non-sense. > > > > > > Yes scheduler uses most of the topology masks as is but that is not a must. > > > There are these *group_mask functions that can implement what scheduler > > > needs to be fed. > > > > > > I am not sure why the 2 issues are getting mixed up and that is the main > > > reason why I jumped into this to make sure the topology masks are > > > not tampered based on the way it needs to be used for scheduler. > > > > > > Both ACPI and DT on a platform must present exact same hardware topology > > > to the user-space, there is no space for argument there. > > > > But that's exactly my point there: > > ACPI doesn't show the dynamiQ level anywhere but only the llc which > > are the same and your patch makes the dynamiQ level visible for DT in > > addition to llc > > > > Sorry if I am missing something obvious here, but both ACPI and DT has no > special representation for dynamiQ clusters and hence it is impossible to > deduce the same from either DT or ACPI. Can you provide some details > or example as what you are referring as dynamiQ. Also what you mean by > dynamiQ not shown on ACPI while shown with DT systems. If there is any > discrepancies, we need to fix. > > Now, what I refer as discrepancy for example on Juno is below: > (value read from a subset of per cpu sysfs files) > cpu 0 1 2 3 4 5 > cluster_id -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 > physical_package_id 1 0 0 1 1 1 > cluster_cpus_list 0 1 2 3 4 5 > package_cpus_list 0,3-5 1-2 1-2 0,3-5 0,3-5 0,3-5 > > The above one is for DT which is wrong in all the 4 entries above. > The below one is on ACPI and after applying my series on Juno. > > cpu 0 1 2 3 4 5 > cluster_id 1 0 0 1 1 1 > physical_package_id 0 0 0 0 0 0 > cluster_cpus_list 0,3-5 1-2 1-2 0,3-5 0,3-5 0,3-5 > package_cpus_list 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 > > This matches the expectation from the various userspace tools like lscpu, > lstopo,..etc. > > > > > > > > IIUC, we don't describe the dynamiQ level in ACPI which uses cache > > > > topology instead to define cpu_coregroup_mask whereas DT described the > > > > dynamiQ instead of using cache topology. If you use cache topology > > > > now, then you should skip the dynamiQ > > > > > > > > > > Yes, unless someone can work out a binding to represent that and convince > > > DT maintainers ;). > > > > > > > Finally, even if CLS and MC have the same scheduling behavior for now, > > > > they might ends up with different scheduling properties which would > > > > mean that replacing MC level by CLS one for current SoC would become > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > > > Again as I mentioned to Dietmar, that is something we can and must deal with > > > in those *group_mask and not expect topology mask to be altered to meet > > > CLS/MC or whatever sched domains needs. Sorry, that is my strong opinion > > > as the topology is already user-space visible and (tooling) people are > > > complaining that DT systems are broken and doesn't match ACPI systems. > > > > again, your proposal doesn't help here because the DT will show a > > level that doesn't appears in ACPI > > > > Which level exactly ? It matches exactly for Juno, the sysfs files are > exact match after my changes. Again don't mix the scheduler domains for > arguments here. > > > > > > > So unless someone gives me non-scheduler and topology specific reasons > > > to change that, sorry but my opinion on this matter is not going to change ;). > > > > > > You will get this view of topology, find a way to manage with all those > > > *group_mask functions. By the way it is already handled for ACPI systems, > > > > AFAICT, no it's not, the cluster described in ACPI is not the dynamiQ > > level that you make now visible to DT > > Again, no. There is no binding for dynamiQ level either in DT or ACPI and > hence there is no way it can become visible on DT. So I have no idea why > there is a thought process or assumption about existence of dynamiQ level > in the DT. It doesn't exist. If that is wrong, can you point me to the > bindings as well as existing device tree ? If you are referring to the > phantom domains Dietmar mentioned in earlier threads, then they don't exist. > It is made up and one need to get the bindings pushed before we can address > such a system. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv