| Message ID | 20190617185920.29581-1-atish.patra@wdc.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V | expand |
Hi Russell, On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as > well. > > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and > reuse the common code instead. > > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2) > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > --- > Hi Russell, > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire > series can be merged at one go. It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there. Are you fine with these changes ? -- Regards, Sudeep
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:20AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > arm and arm64 shared lot of CPU topology related code. This was > consolidated under driver/base/arch_topology.c by Juri. Now RISC-V > is also started sharing the same code pulling more code from arm64 > into arch_topology.c > > Since I was involved in the review from the beginning, I would like > to assume maintenance for the same. > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe > their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to > a common place instead of duplicate code. > > To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > [Tested on QDF2400] > Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> > [Tested on Juno and other embedded platforms.] > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 19:38 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe > > their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to > > a common place instead of duplicate code. > > > > To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > > [Tested on QDF2400] > > Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> > > [Tested on Juno and other embedded platforms.] > > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Hi Paul, I guess Greg has acked the series assuming that it will go through some other tree. Can you take it through RISC-V tree ? Sorry for the confusion. Note: We are still waiting for RMK's ACK on arm patch before it can be sent as a PR. Regards, Atish
Hi Atish, Russell, On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote: > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 19:38 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > > Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe > > > their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to > > > a common place instead of duplicate code. [ ... ] > I guess Greg has acked the series assuming that it will go through some > other tree. Can you take it through RISC-V tree ? > > Sorry for the confusion. > > Note: We are still waiting for RMK's ACK on arm patch before it can be > sent as a PR. I'm fine to take it through the RISC-V tree, once Russell acks the arch/arm patch. - Paul
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent > > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common > > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as > > well. > > > > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and > > reuse the common code instead. > > > > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2) > > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > --- > > Hi Russell, > > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire > > series can be merged at one go. > > It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there. > Are you fine with these changes ? > Do you have any objections with this patch ? We plan to merge through RISC-V tree, please let us know. It has been acked-by all the other maintainers. -- Regards, Sudeep
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:06:58PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent > > > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common > > > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as > > > well. > > > > > > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and > > > reuse the common code instead. > > > > > > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > > > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2) > > > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > > > --- > > > Hi Russell, > > > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire > > > series can be merged at one go. > > > > It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there. > > Are you fine with these changes ? > > > > Do you have any objections with this patch ? We plan to merge through > RISC-V tree, please let us know. It has been acked-by all the other > maintainers. I have no interest in the CPU topology code; as far as I know I have no systems that are able to exercise this code in any way. Therefore, I don't know this code, I have no way to test it, and so it is not appropriate for me to ack patches for it.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:30:33PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 04:06:58PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:10:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:59:17AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > > > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to represent > > > > their cpu topologies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 topology to common > > > > code to be used by other architectures, we can reuse that for ARM32 as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > Take this opprtunity to remove the redundant functions from ARM32 and > > > > reuse the common code instead. > > > > > > > > To: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> > > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> > > > > Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on TC2) > > > > Reviewed-by : Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > Can we get a ACK for this patch ? We are hoping that the entire > > > > series can be merged at one go. > > > > > > It would be nice to get this in for v5.3 as it's almost there. > > > Are you fine with these changes ? > > > > > > > Do you have any objections with this patch ? We plan to merge through > > RISC-V tree, please let us know. It has been acked-by all the other > > maintainers. > > I have no interest in the CPU topology code; as far as I know I have > no systems that are able to exercise this code in any way. Therefore, > I don't know this code, I have no way to test it, and so it is not > appropriate for me to ack patches for it. > I completely understand that and we can take care of testing. As along as you don't have objections to this, that should be fine I believe. -- Regards, Sudeep
The cpu-map DT entry in ARM can describe the CPU topology in much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can easily adopt this binding to represent its own CPU topology. Thus, both cpu-map DT binding and topology parsing code can be moved to a common location so that RISC-V or any other architecture can leverage that. The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be found in [1]. arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common code. I have not introduced any significant functional changes in the moved code. The only downside in this approach is that the capacity code will be executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit immediately after not able to find the appropriate DT node. If the overhead is considered too much, we can always compile out capacity related functions under a different config for the architectures that do not support them. There was an opportunity to unify topology data structure for ARM32 done by patch 3/4. But, I refrained from making any other changes as I am not very well versed with original intention for some functions that are present in arch_topology.c. I hope this patch series can be served as a baseline for such changes in the future. The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for ARM64, ARM32 & x86. From Jeremy, "I applied these to 5.2rc2, along with my PPTT/MT change and verified the system & scheduler topology/etc on DAWN and ThunderX2 using ACPI on arm64. They appear to be working correctly. so for the series, Tested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>" The socket change[2] is also now part of this series. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19 [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/7/918 QEMU changes for RISC-V topology are available at https://github.com/atishp04/qemu/tree/riscv_topology_dt HiFive Unleashed DT with topology node is available here. https://github.com/atishp04/opensbi/tree/HiFive_unleashed_topology It can be verified with OpenSBI with following additional compile time option. FW_PAYLOAD_FDT="unleashed_topology.dtb" Changes from v6->v7 1. Added socket to HiFive Unleashed topology example. 2. Added Acked-by & Reviewed-by. Changes from v5->v6 1. Added two more patches from Sudeep about maintainership of arch_topology.c and Kconfig update. 2. Added Tested-by & Reviewed-by 3. Fixed a nit (reordering of variables) Changes from v4-v5 1. Removed the arch_topology.h header inclusion from topology.c and arch_topology.c file. Added it in linux/topology.h. 2. core_id is set to -1 upon reset. Otherwise, ARM topology store function does not work. Changes from v3->v4 1. Get rid of ARM32 specific information in topology structure. 2. Remove redundant functions from ARM32 and use common code instead. Changes from v2->v3 1. Cover letter update with experiment DT for topology changes. 2. Added the patch for [2]. Changes from v1->v2 1. ARM32 can now use the common code as well. Atish Patra (4): dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding. cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code. arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions. RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot. Sudeep Holla (3): Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries base: arch_topology: update Kconfig help description MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for generic architecture topology .../topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} | 136 ++++++-- MAINTAINERS | 7 + arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 20 -- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 60 +--- arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 23 -- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 303 +----------------- arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 + arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 3 + drivers/base/Kconfig | 2 +- drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 298 +++++++++++++++++ include/linux/arch_topology.h | 26 ++ include/linux/topology.h | 1 + 12 files changed, 454 insertions(+), 426 deletions(-) rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{arm/topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} (66%) -- 2.21.0