Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753002AbeACO3r (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:29:47 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:50822 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751364AbeACO3p (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:29:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:29:34 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Xiongfeng Wang , Morten Rasmussen , Jeremy Linton Cc: Sudeep Holla , Lorenzo Pieralisi , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, jhugo@codeaurora.org, Jonathan.Zhang@cavium.com, ahs3@redhat.com, Jayachandran.Nair@cavium.com, austinwc@codeaurora.org, lenb@kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] arm64: Topology, rename cluster_id Message-ID: <20180103142934.GA5390@e107155-lin> References: <20171201222330.18863-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20171201222330.18863-8-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20171213180217.GB4060@red-moon> <7bb4e955-f3e5-d22f-4e78-eac97e66a9a6@arm.com> <20171218124229.GG507@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <965127a6-816b-8e0c-d228-a3d73a8c643a@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <965127a6-816b-8e0c-d228-a3d73a8c643a@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On 02/01/18 02:29, Xiongfeng Wang wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017/12/18 20:42, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:36:35AM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 12/13/2017 12:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>> [+Morten, Dietmar] >>>> >>>> $SUBJECT should be: >>>> >>>> arm64: topology: rename cluster_id >>> > [cut] >>> > I think we still need the information describing which cores are in one > cluster. Many arm64 chips have the architecture core/cluster/socket. Cores > in one cluster may share a same L2 cache. That information can be used to > build the sched_domain. If we put cores in one cluster in one sched_domain, > the performance will be better.(please see kernel/sched/topology.c:1197, > cpu_coregroup_mask() uses 'core_sibling' to build a multi-core > sched_domain). We get all the cache information from DT/ACPI PPTT(mainly topology) and now even the geometry. So ideally, the sharing information must come from that. Any other solution might end up in conflict if DT/PPTT and that mismatch. > So I think we still need variable to record which cores are in one > sched_domain for future use. I tend to say no, at-least not as is. -- Regards, Sudeep