[PATCH] arm64: topology: add MPIDR-based detection

[Ganapatrao Kulkarni]

How we map non SMT (MT bit24=0) cores of dual/multi socket system with
the topology which is using only aff0 and aff1?
can we use aff2  ( or concatenating aff2 and aff3)  to represent socket-id?

thanks
Ganapat


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>
>> > My question is: is it better to pack affinity levels and "guess" what aff3
>> > (and aff2 on non-SMT) means or add an additional level of hierarchy in the
>> > arm64 topology code (eg book_id - implemented only for s390 to the best
>> > of my knowledge) ?
>>
>> Shoving them in there would address the issue as well, yes (though we'd
>> still have to combine aff2 and aff3 for the non-SMT case).  I don't know
>> if having books enabled has some overhead we don't want though.
>>
>> > I personally prefer the latter approach but I think it boils down to
>> > understanding what do we want to provide the scheduler with if we have
>> > a hierarchy that extends beyond "cluster" level.
>>
>> > I will be glad to help you implement it when time comes (and this will also
>> > fix the clusters of clusters DT issue we are facing - ie how to treat them).
>>
>> > Now, I do not think it is a major problem at the moment, merging the
>> > patch I sent will give us more time to discuss how to define the
>> > topology for clusters of clusters, because that's what we are talking
>> > about.
>>
>> In so far as you're saying that we don't really need to worry about
>> exactly how we handle multi-level clusters properly at the minute I
>> agree with you - until we have some idea what they physically look like
>> and can consider how well that maps onto the scheduler and whatnot it
>> doesn't really matter and we can just ignore it.  Given that I'm not
>> concerned about just reporting everything as flat like we do with DT at
>> the minute and don't see a real need to theorise about it, it'll just be
>> a performance problem and not a correctness problem when it is
>> encountered.  That feels like a better position to leave things in as it
>> will be less stress for whoever is bringing up such a fancy new system,
>> they can stand a reasonable chance of getting things at least running
>> with minimal effort.
>
> Ok, I think we have an agreement, let's merge the patch I sent and
> discuss the way forward to cater for systems with clusters of clusters
> when we reasonably expect them to hit production, the scheduler expected
> topology might well change by that time and now we are well positioned
> to cope with future extensions (and actually packing affinity levels
> might well be the final solution if the scheduler expects a "flat"
> topology at the higher topology level).
>
>> > Does it make sense ?
>>
>> Like I say I do think that merging your current code is better than
>> nothing.
>
> Great, thanks for bearing with me.
>
> Thanks !
> Lorenzo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-kernel mailing list
> linaro-kernel at lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-kernel