[PATCH v3 15/16] arch_topology: Set cluster identifier in each core/thread from /cpu-map

[Sudeep Holla]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 03:27:33PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 13:16, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2022 12:17, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:19:36AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>>> On 10/06/2022 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 <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>> What are you referring as 'glue them together'. As I said this series just
> >>> address the hardware topology and if there is any impact on sched domains
> >>> then it is do with alignment with ACPI and DT platform behaviour. I am not
> >>> adding anything more to glue topology and info needed for sched domains.
> >>
> >> You can fix (1) without (2) parsing 1. level cluster nodes as
> >> cluster_siblings.
> >>
> > 
> > Technically yes, but I see no point in delaying it as it is considered as
> > broken with respect to the moment ACPI exposed the correct value and at the
> > same time resulted in exposing incorrect value in case of DT. I am referring
> > to the same change that introduced SCHED_CLUSTER. The damage is done and it
> > needs repairing ASAP.
> 
> OK, then lets `/sys/.../topology/cluster_cpus` refer to pure
> topology-based cluster information. This can be DT cluster-node
> information or ACPI L3-tag information e.g. for KP920.
>

Agreed. All the information under /sys/.../topology/ are the hardware view
and not the scheduler's view of the hardware for the purpose of building
sched domains.

> >>> Indeed. But I don't get what you mean by 2 level here. ACPI puts 1st level
> >>
> >> cpu_map {
> >>   socket0 {
> >>     cluster0 {    <-- 1. level cluster
> >>       cluster0 {  <-- 2. level cluster (3 -->)
> > 
> > Oh I had misunderstood this level nomenclature, I refer it as leaf cluster
> > node which is 2. level cluster in this DT snippet.
> > 
> >>         core0 {
> >>
> >>         };
> >>         core1 {
> >>
> >>         };
> >>       cluster1 {
> >>   ...
> >>
> >> Armv9 L2 complexes: e.g. QC SM8450:
> >>
> >>       .---------------.
> >> CPU   |0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7|
> >>       +---------------+
> >> uarch |l l l l m m m b| (so called tri-gear: little, medium, big)
> >>       +---------------+
> >>   L2  |   |   | | | | | <-- 2. level cluster, Armv9 L2 complexes (<-- 3)
> > 
> > Again before I assume, what exactly <--3 here and in above snippet mean ?
> 
> I wanted to show that we could encode `2. level cluster` as `Armv9 L2
> complexes`. But since we agreed (after the email was sent) not to
> support `nested cluster-nodes`, this idea does not hold anymore.
>

Yes I plan to throw warning if we encounter nested clusters, will be part of
next version(https://git.kernel.org/sudeep.holla/c/94fae12d64bb).

> >>       +---------------+
> >>   L3  |<--         -->|
> >>       +---------------+
> >>       |<-- cluster -->|
> > 
> > I think this is 2 level cluster or only cluster in this system w.r.t hardware.
> > So lets not confuse with multi-level if not necessary.
>
> No need, we said no `nested cluster-node` support in DT.
>

👍

> >>       +---------------+
> >>       |<--   DSU   -->|
> >>       '---------------'
> >>
> >> Only if we map (i) into cluster_sibling, we get the same hardware
> >> representation (for the task scheduler) for ACPI (4) and DT (5) systems.
> >>
> > 
> > What is (i) above ?
> 
> Sorry, (i) was meant to be `3 -->`.
>

Ah ok

> >> (4) examples:
> >>
> >> Kunpeng920 - 24 CPUs sharing LLC (cpu_coregroup_mask()), 4 CPUs sharing
> >> L3-tag (cpu_clustergroup_mask()).
> >>
> > 
> > Again decouple cache info and cluster info from h/w, you have all the info.
> > You can couple them together if that helps when you feed sched_domains.
>
> OK, this is what we finally agreed.
>

👍

> >> X86 Jacobsville - 24 CPUs sharing LLC (L3), 4 CPUs sharing L2
> >>
> >> Armv9 L2 complexes: e.g. QC SM8450 - 8 CPUs sharing LLC (L3), (for A510
> >> (little CPUs)) 2 CPUs sharing L2
> >
> > [...]
> > 
> >>> And yes lstopo doesn't read cluster IDs. But we expose them in ACPI system
> >>> and not on DT which was my main point.
> 
> OK, no further discussion needed here. `/sys/.../topology/cluster_cpus`
> shows L2 (LLC) on Juno, L3-tag an KP920 or L2 on X86 Jacobsville. The
> cpu_xxx_mask()s of (e.g.) default_topology[] have to make sure that the
> scheduler sees the correct information (the hierarchy of cpumasks).
>

Correct

> >> Understood. But a Kunpeng920 `cluster_cpus_list` file would contain
> >> logically different information than a Juno `cluster_cpus_list` file.
> >>
> > And why is that ?
> 
> If we see it from the angle of the definition of SCHED_CONFIG_CLUSTER
> (`... the level of topology above CPUs ...` then I can see that both
> definitions are the same. (CPUS should be rather `cores` here, I guess?).
> 
> [...]
>

Yes, I have use cores and CPUs interchanges at several places so far, will
try to be more specific in the future.

> >>> As pointed out earlier, have you checked ACPI on Juno and with 
> >>> CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER ? If the behaviour with my series on DT and ACPI
> >>> differs, then it is an issue. But AFAIU, it doesn't and that is my main
> >>> argument. You are just assuming what we have on Juno with DT is correct
> >>> which may be w.r.t to scheduler but definitely not with respect to the
> >>> hardware topology exposed to the users. So my aim is to get that fixed.
> >>
> >> I never run Juno w/ ACPI. Are you saying that
> >> find_acpi_cpu_topology_cluster() returns cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_id's
> >> which match the `1. level cluster nodes`?
> >>
> >
> > Again I am totally confused as why this is now 1.level cluster where as above
> > SDM was 2.level cluster. Both SoCs have only 1 level of cluster. While SDM
> > has 1 DSU cluster, Juno has 2 clusters.
> 
> No need in agreeing what level (could) stand(s) here for. We said `no
> nested cluster-node`.
>

👍

> >> The function header of find_acpi_cpu_topology_cluster() says that `...
> >> the cluster, if present is the level of topology above CPUs. ...`.
> >>
> > 
> > Exactly and that's how sysfs is also defined and we can't go back and change
> > that now. I don't see any issue TBH.
> 
> OK.
> 
> >> From this perspective I can see your point. But this is then still
> >> clearly poorly designed.
> > 
> > Not really as per the definition.
> 
> Not from the viewpoint of topology and cacheinfo. But from the scheduler
> and the whole thing gets activated by a scheduler CONFIG option.
>

Agreed and I too think it must be enabled by default.

> >> How would we ever support CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER
> >> in DT when it really (potentially) would bring a benefit (i.e. in the
> >> Armv9 L2-complex case) and not only create trouble for the task
> >> scheduler to setup its domains correctly?
> > 
> > Indeed, that is the next problem once we get all these aligned across
> > DT and ACPI. They have diverged and I prefer not to allow that anymore
> > by adding more divergence e.g. to support Armv9 L2-complex case. Please
> > consider that on top of these, I am not addressing that at the moment.
> > In fact I am not addressing any sched_domain topics or issues. I have made
> > that clear 😉.
> 
> If I recall the content of our discussion correctly, `Armv9 L2
> complexes` support could come from L2 (probably `LLC - 1` ?) detection
> from cacheinfo. But this is not part of this patch-set.
>

Correct and thanks for making that clear here. I have intentionally not
mentioned it so far as I am not addressing anything specific to such a
topology.

> >> Also in case we stick to
> >> setting CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER=1 by default, CLS should be the default LLC
> >> sched domain and MC the exceptional one. Just to respect the way how the
> >> task scheduler removes not useful domains today.
> > 
> > Fix the cpu_clustergroup_mask or any other cpu_*group_mask as per your
> > taste. The topology masks are just inputs to these and will not be changed
> > or diverged for these reasons. Sorry if that is not helpful, but that is the
> > reality with sysfs exposed to the user-space.
> 
> Agreed. We don't have to rely on the task scheduler to build the right
> sched domain hierarchy out of every cpu_xxx_mask() functions. We can
> tweak cpu_xxx_mask() to get this done.
>

Correct, I am not saying it is as simple as that, but to keep hardware
topology and the info fed to scheduler or the info as viewed from
sched_domains perspective different. The former changes with hardware while
the latter changes with the view of scheduler. Based on the logic it
used to optimise, scheduler can try different view on the same hardware but
that's not where we want to be. We want to provide a generic view based on
all the h/w cpu and cache topology information. It may not be always optimal,
but we can try the best.

> >>> If you are not happy with that, then how can be be happy with what is the
> >>> current behaviour on ACPI + and - CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER. I haven't got
> >>> your opinion yet on that matter.
> >>
> >> I guess it's clear now that ACPI + CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER with ``the level
> >> of topology above CPUs` is congruent with LLC` creates trouble to the
> >> scheduler. So I don't see why we should replicate this for DT. Let's
> >> discuss further tomorrow in person.
> > 
> > I see it differently. If that creates a trouble, fix that and you will not
> > have any issues with DT too.
> 
> OK, I think we (arm64) found a way to support a default
> CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER and fixing the `Juno lstopo` issue with a possible
> way to include `Armv9 L2 complexes` support via cacheinfo later.

Thanks for all the discussion. Hope we may not have to revisit this topic
in such depth until another topology that breaks all our current assumption
arrives in the wild which may not be too long.

I remember talking with Morten and concluding LLC is sufficient for arm64
couple of years back, but now that can be questionable with Armv9 L2
complex.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep