Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:56:42 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To:     Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as
 ready-only
Message-ID: <20190327105640.ibiw5mvuggp35msl@queper01-lin>
References: <df8c3952-b1ab-bc15-ccb7-e4a5d7d54bf8@arm.com>
 <1552048728-29657-1-git-send-email-clingutla@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1552048728-29657-1-git-send-email-clingutla@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Friday 08 Mar 2019 at 18:08:48 (+0530), Lingutla Chandrasekhar wrote:
> If user updates any cpu's cpu_capacity, then the new value is going to
> be applied to all its online sibling cpus. But this need not to be correct
> always, as sibling cpus (in ARM, same micro architecture cpus) would have
> different cpu_capacity with different performance characteristics.
> So updating the user supplied cpu_capacity to all cpu siblings
> is not correct.
> 
> And another problem is, current code assumes that 'all cpus in a cluster
> or with same package_id (core_siblings), would have same cpu_capacity'.
> But with commit '5bdd2b3f0f8 ("arm64: topology: add support to remove
> cpu topology sibling masks")', when a cpu hotplugged out, the cpu
> information gets cleared in its sibling cpus. So user supplied
> cpu_capacity would be applied to only online sibling cpus at the time.
> After that, if any cpu hot plugged in, it would have different cpu_capacity
> than its siblings, which breaks the above assumption.
> 
> So instead of mucking around the core sibling mask for user supplied
> value, use device-tree to set cpu capacity. And make the cpu_capacity
> node as read-only to know the assymetry between cpus in the system.
> While at it, remove cpu_scale_mutex usage, which used for sysfs write
> protection.
> 
> Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>

Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Tested-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>

Thanks for doing this,
Quentin