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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58FE6C433E0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5AC208E4 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:21:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CA5AC208E4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BJ1xG2BQzzDqdt for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:21:22 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BJ1tv2NpnzDqbY for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 19:19:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06V92TAr083266; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:19:08 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32ma2psb0m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:19:07 -0400 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06V9IfRR126224; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:19:07 -0400 Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32ma2psayc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:19:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06V9Exfp001391; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:19:04 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32gcq0vbv6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:19:04 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06V9HaPP64946670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:17:37 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771ADAE04D; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:19:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C24AE045; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:19:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 09:19:00 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:48:59 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] Powerpc/numa: Detect support for coregroup Message-ID: <20200731091859.GG14603@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20200727053230.19753-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200727053230.19753-8-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <8736585djw.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8736585djw.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-31_02:2020-07-31, 2020-07-31 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=971 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007310063 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Nathan Lynch , Gautham R Shenoy , Michael Neuling , Peter Zijlstra , Jordan Niethe , LKML , Nicholas Piggin , Valentin Schneider , Oliver O'Halloran , linuxppc-dev , Ingo Molnar Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Michael Ellerman [2020-07-31 17:49:55]: > Srikar Dronamraju writes: > > Add support for grouping cores based on the device-tree classification. > > - The last domain in the associativity domains always refers to the > > core. > > - If primary reference domain happens to be the penultimate domain in > > the associativity domains device-tree property, then there are no > > coregroups. However if its not a penultimate domain, then there are > > coregroups. There can be more than one coregroup. For now we would be > > interested in the last or the smallest coregroups. > > This still doesn't tell me what a coregroup actually represents. > > I get that it's a grouping of cores, and that the device tree specifies > it for us, but grouping based on what? > We have just abstracted the fact that we are creating a sub-group of cores within a DIE. We are limiting to one sub-group per core. However this would allow the firmware the flexibility to vary the grouping. Once the firmware starts using this group, we could add more code to detect the type of grouping and adjust the sd domain flags accordingly. > I think the answer is we aren't being told by firmware, it's just a > grouping based on some opaque performance characteristic and we just > have to take that as given. > This is partially true. At this time, we dont have firmwares that can exploit this code. Once the firmwares start using this grouping, we could add more code to align the grouping to the scheduler topology. > But please explain that clearly in the change log and the code comments. > Okay, I will do the needful. > cheers > -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju