From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oliver OHalloran <oliveroh@au1.ibm.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@au1.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] powerpc/smp: Merge Power9 topology with Power topology
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:14:36 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200717054436.GB25851@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200714043624.5648-3-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hi Srikar,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:15AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> A new sched_domain_topology_level was added just for Power9. However the
> same can be achieved by merging powerpc_topology with power9_topology
> and makes the code more simpler especially when adding a new sched
> domain.
>
> Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@au1.ibm.com>
> Cc: Oliver OHalloran <oliveroh@au1.ibm.com>
> Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 33 ++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> index 680c0edcc59d..069ea4b21c6d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ int setup_profiling_timer(unsigned int multiplier)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> -/* cpumask of CPUs with asymetric SMT dependancy */
> +/* cpumask of CPUs with asymmetric SMT dependency */
> static int powerpc_smt_flags(void)
> {
> int flags = SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES;
> @@ -1328,14 +1328,6 @@ static int powerpc_smt_flags(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static struct sched_domain_topology_level powerpc_topology[] = {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> - { cpu_smt_mask, powerpc_smt_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(SMT) },
> -#endif
> - { cpu_cpu_mask, SD_INIT_NAME(DIE) },
> - { NULL, },
> -};
> -
> /*
> * P9 has a slightly odd architecture where pairs of cores share an L2 cache.
> * This topology makes it *much* cheaper to migrate tasks between adjacent cores
> @@ -1353,7 +1345,13 @@ static int powerpc_shared_cache_flags(void)
> */
> static const struct cpumask *shared_cache_mask(int cpu)
> {
> - return cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu);
> + if (shared_caches)
> + return cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu);
> +
> + if (has_big_cores)
> + return cpu_smallcore_mask(cpu);
> +
> + return cpu_smt_mask(cpu);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> @@ -1363,7 +1361,7 @@ static const struct cpumask *smallcore_smt_mask(int cpu)
> }
> #endif
>
> -static struct sched_domain_topology_level power9_topology[] = {
> +static struct sched_domain_topology_level powerpc_topology[] = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> { cpu_smt_mask, powerpc_smt_flags, SD_INIT_NAME(SMT) },
> #endif
> @@ -1388,21 +1386,10 @@ void __init smp_cpus_done(unsigned int max_cpus)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> if (has_big_cores) {
> pr_info("Big cores detected but using small core scheduling\n");
I> - power9_topology[0].mask = smallcore_smt_mask;
> powerpc_topology[0].mask = smallcore_smt_mask;
> }
> #endif
> - /*
> - * If any CPU detects that it's sharing a cache with another CPU then
> - * use the deeper topology that is aware of this sharing.
> - */
> - if (shared_caches) {
> - pr_info("Using shared cache scheduler topology\n");
> - set_sched_topology(power9_topology);
> - } else {
> - pr_info("Using standard scheduler topology\n");
> - set_sched_topology(powerpc_topology);
Ok, so we will go with the three level topology by default (SMT,
CACHE, DIE) and will rely on the sched-domain creation code to
degenerate CACHE domain in case SMT and CACHE have the same set of
CPUs (POWER8 for eg).
From a cleanup perspective this is better, since we won't have to
worry about defining multiple topology structures, but from a
performance point of view, wouldn't we now pay an extra penalty of
degenerating the CACHE domains on POWER8 kind of systems, each time
when a CPU comes online ?
Do we know how bad it is ? If the degeneration takes a few extra
microseconds, that should be ok I suppose.
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-17 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-14 4:36 [PATCH 00/11] Support for grouping cores Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 01/11] powerpc/smp: Cache node for reuse Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 4:51 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 02/11] powerpc/smp: Merge Power9 topology with Power topology Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 5:44 ` Gautham R Shenoy [this message]
2020-07-20 8:10 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 03/11] powerpc/smp: Move powerpc_topology above Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 5:45 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 04/11] powerpc/smp: Enable small core scheduling sooner Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 5:48 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 7:20 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-20 7:47 ` Jordan Niethe
2020-07-20 8:52 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 05/11] powerpc/smp: Dont assume l2-cache to be superset of sibling Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 5:40 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-07-14 6:30 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 6:00 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 6:45 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-20 8:58 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 06/11] powerpc/smp: Generalize 2nd sched domain Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 6:37 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 6:19 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-20 9:07 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 07/11] Powerpc/numa: Detect support for coregroup Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 8:08 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 13:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-21 2:57 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 08/11] powerpc/smp: Allocate cpumask only after searching thread group Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 8:08 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 09/11] Powerpc/smp: Create coregroup domain Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 8:19 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-17 8:23 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 6:02 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 10/11] powerpc/smp: Implement cpu_to_coregroup_id Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 8:26 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 5:48 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-20 9:10 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 10:26 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-14 4:36 ` [PATCH 11/11] powerpc/smp: Provide an ability to disable coregroup Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-17 8:28 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-07-20 13:57 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-14 5:06 ` [PATCH 00/11] Support for grouping cores Srikar Dronamraju
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=20200717054436.GB25851@in.ibm.com \
--to=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=michaele@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=mikey@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=oliveroh@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.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).