[PATCH] arm64: topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information

[Sudeep Holla]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 02:00:16PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> In the absence of ACPI or DT topology data, we fallback to haphazardly
> decoding *something* out of MPIDR. Sadly, the contents of that register are
> mostly unusable due to the implementation leniancy and things like Aff0
> having to be capped to 15 (despite being encoded on 8 bits).
>
> Consider a simple system with a single package of 32 cores, all under the
> same LLC. We ought to be shoving them in the same core_sibling mask, but
> MPIDR is going to look like:
>
>   | CPU  | 0 | ... | 15 | 16 | ... | 31 |
>   |------+---+-----+----+----+-----+----+
>   | Aff0 | 0 | ... | 15 |  0 | ... | 15 |
>   | Aff1 | 0 | ... |  0 |  1 | ... |  1 |
>   | Aff2 | 0 | ... |  0 |  0 | ... |  0 |
>
> Which will eventually yield
>
>   core_sibling(0-15)  == 0-15
>   core_sibling(16-31) == 16-31
>
> NUMA woes
> =========
>
> If we try to play games with this and set up NUMA boundaries within those
> groups of 16 cores via e.g. QEMU:
>
>   # Node0: 0-9; Node1: 10-19
>   $ qemu-system-aarch64 <blah> \
>     -smp 20 -numa node,cpus=0-9,nodeid=0 -numa node,cpus=10-19,nodeid=1
>
> The scheduler's MC domain (all CPUs with same LLC) is going to be built via
>
>   arch_topology.c::cpu_coregroup_mask()
>
> In there we try to figure out a sensible mask out of the topology
> information we have. In short, here we'll pick the smallest of NUMA or
> core sibling mask.
>
>   node_mask(CPU9)    == 0-9
>   core_sibling(CPU9) == 0-15
>
> MC mask for CPU9 will thus be 0-9, not a problem.
>
>   node_mask(CPU10)    == 10-19
>   core_sibling(CPU10) == 0-15
>
> MC mask for CPU10 will thus be 10-19, not a problem.
>
>   node_mask(CPU16)    == 10-19
>   core_sibling(CPU16) == 16-19
>
> MC mask for CPU16 will thus be 16-19... Uh oh. CPUs 16-19 are in two
> different unique MC spans, and the scheduler has no idea what to make of
> that. That triggers the WARN_ON() added by commit
>
>   ccf74128d66c ("sched/topology: Assert non-NUMA topology masks don't (partially) overlap")
>
> Fixing MPIDR-derived topology
> =============================
>
> We could try to come up with some cleverer scheme to figure out which of
> the available masks to pick, but really if one of those masks resulted from
> MPIDR then it should be discarded because it's bound to be bogus.
>
> I was hoping to give MPIDR a chance for SMT, to figure out which threads are
> in the same core using Aff1-3 as core ID, but Sudeep and Robin pointed out
> to me that there are systems out there where *all* cores have non-zero
> values in their higher affinity fields (e.g. RK3288 has "5" in all of its
> cores' MPIDR.Aff1), which would expose a bogus core ID to userspace.
>
> Stop using MPIDR for topology information. When no other source of topology
> information is available, mark each CPU as its own core and its NUMA node
> as its LLC domain.
>

Looks good to me, so:

Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>

However, we need to get it tested on some systems with *weird* MPIDR
values and don't have topology described in DT cpu-maps and somehow
(wrongly) relied on below logic. Also though these affect user ABI via
sysfs topology, I expect systems w/o DT cpu-maps and weird MPIDR are
broken either way.

Luckily found only one such mpidr in arm64 DTS files:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/sprd/sc9860.dtsi

--
Regards,
Sudeep