Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756812Ab1FPMFr (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:05:47 -0400 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:65531 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753306Ab1FPMFq convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:05:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4DF9DF9E.4070004@linaro.org> References: <4DF9DF9E.4070004@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:05:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Add Arm cpu topology definition From: Vincent Guittot To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, Patch Tracking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 11280 Lines: 350 On 16 June 2011 12:49, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 06/16/2011 10:49 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> The affinity between Arm processors is defined in the MPIDR register. >> We can identify which processors are in the same cluster, >> and which ones have performance interdependency. The cpu topology >> ?of an Arm platform can be set thanks to this register and this topology >> is then used by sched_mc and sched_smt. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot >> --- >> ?arch/arm/Kconfig ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ? 26 ++++++++ >> ?arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | ? 33 ++++++++++ >> ?arch/arm/kernel/Makefile ? ? ? ?| ? ?1 + >> ?arch/arm/kernel/smp.c ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?6 ++ >> ?arch/arm/kernel/topology.c ? ? ?| ?133 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ?5 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> ?create mode 100644 arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> index 9adc278..bacf9af 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> @@ -219,6 +219,24 @@ source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer" >> >> ?menu "System Type" >> >> +config SCHED_MC >> + ? ? ? bool "Multi-core scheduler support" >> + ? ? ? depends on SMP&& ?ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY > > ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY depends on SMP, so the check can be reduced to > > depends on ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY you're right >> >> + ? ? ? default n >> + ? ? ? help >> + ? ? ? ? Multi-core scheduler support improves the CPU scheduler's >> decision >> + ? ? ? ? making when dealing with multi-core CPU chips at a cost of >> slightly >> + ? ? ? ? increased overhead in some places. If unsure say N here. >> + >> +config SCHED_SMT >> + ? ? ? bool "SMT scheduler support" >> + ? ? ? depends on SMP&& ?ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY > > depends on SMT && ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY ? SMP is the right one but it can be reduced to : depends on ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY like SCHED_MC, > >> + ? ? ? default n >> + ? ? ? help >> + ? ? ? ? Improves the CPU scheduler's decision making when dealing with >> + ? ? ? ? MultiThreading at a cost of slightly increased overhead in some >> + ? ? ? ? places. If unsure say N here. >> + >> ?config MMU >> ? ? ? ?bool "MMU-based Paged Memory Management Support" >> ? ? ? ?default y >> @@ -1062,6 +1080,14 @@ if !MMU >> ?source "arch/arm/Kconfig-nommu" >> ?endif >> >> +config ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY >> + ? ? ? bool "Support cpu topology definition" >> + ? ? ? depends on SMP&& ?CPU_V7 >> + ? ? ? help >> + ? ? ? ? Support Arm cpu topology definition. The MPIDR register defines >> + ? ? ? ? affinity between processors which is used to set the cpu >> + ? ? ? ? topology of an Arm System. >> + >> ?config ARM_ERRATA_411920 >> ? ? ? ?bool "ARM errata: Invalidation of the Instruction Cache operation >> can fail" >> ? ? ? ?depends on CPU_V6 || CPU_V6K >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h >> b/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h >> index accbd7c..cb90d0a 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h >> @@ -1,6 +1,39 @@ >> ?#ifndef _ASM_ARM_TOPOLOGY_H >> ?#define _ASM_ARM_TOPOLOGY_H >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY >> + >> +#include >> + >> +struct cputopo_arm { >> + ? ? ? int thread_id; >> + ? ? ? int core_id; >> + ? ? ? int socket_id; > > I am not sure how that deals with the rest of the functions prototype but > wouldn't u16 be more adequate ? > I have used int to be aligned on register size and minimize register manipulation >> + ? ? ? cpumask_t thread_sibling; >> + ? ? ? cpumask_t core_sibling; >> +}; >> + >> +extern struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; >> + >> +#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) >> ?(cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id) >> +#define topology_core_id(cpu) ? ? ? ? ?(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id) >> +#define topology_core_cpumask(cpu) >> (&(cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)) >> +#define topology_thread_cpumask(cpu) >> (&(cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)) >> + >> +#define mc_capable() ? (cpu_topology[0].socket_id != -1) >> +#define smt_capable() ?(cpu_topology[0].thread_id != -1) >> + >> +void init_cpu_topology(void); >> +void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid); >> +const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(unsigned int cpu); >> + >> +#else >> + >> +#define init_cpu_topology() {}; >> +#define store_cpu_topology(cpuid) {}; > > AFAIK the convention is to declare static inline noop functions. > > static inline void init_cpu_topology(void) { }; > static inline void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid) { }; > ok >> + >> +#endif >> + >> ?#include >> >> ?#endif /* _ASM_ARM_TOPOLOGY_H */ >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile >> index a5b31af..816a481 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_IWMMXT) ? ? ? ? ?+= iwmmxt.o >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_HAS_PMU) ? ? += pmu.o >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS) ?+= perf_event.o >> ?AFLAGS_iwmmxt.o ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? := -Wa,-mcpu=iwmmxt >> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY) ?+= topology.o >> >> ?ifneq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_EBSA110),y) >> ? ?obj-y ? ? ? ? ? ? ? += io.o >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c >> index 344e52b..3e8dc3b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c >> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ >> ?#include >> ?#include >> ?#include >> +#include >> ?#include >> ?#include >> ?#include >> @@ -268,6 +269,9 @@ static void __cpuinit smp_store_cpu_info(unsigned int >> cpuid) >> ? ? ? ?struct cpuinfo_arm *cpu_info =&per_cpu(cpu_data, cpuid); >> >> ? ? ? ?cpu_info->loops_per_jiffy = loops_per_jiffy; >> + >> + ? ? ? store_cpu_topology(cpuid); >> + >> ?} > > If the store_cpu_topology function is called once, can it be changed to a > __cpuinit function, declared as a subsys_initcall and removed from here ? > it must be called once on each cpu before the call of sched_init_smp >> ?/* >> @@ -354,6 +358,8 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) >> ?{ >> ? ? ? ?unsigned int ncores = num_possible_cpus(); >> >> + ? ? ? init_cpu_topology(); > > Why do you need to call the init function here ? > this function must be called before the 1st call to smp_store_cpu_info > On the other architecture I see: > > static int __init topology_init(void) > { > ? ?... > } > > subsys_initcall(topology_init); > > Isn't possible to use the same way ? (with the benefit to save two > declarations in the header). > > > [ ... ] > >> + >> +struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; > > IMO, you can define it static here no ? > This array is used by "#define topology_xxx" and "#define xx_capable" which are used by the scheduler and the topology driver >> + >> +const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + ? ? ? return&(cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * store_cpu_topology is called at boot when only one cpu is running >> + * and with the mutex cpu_hotplug.lock locked, when several cpus have >> booted, >> + * which prevents simultaneous write access to cpu_topology array >> + */ >> +void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid) >> +{ >> + ? ? ? struct cputopo_arm *cpuid_topo =&(cpu_topology[cpuid]); >> + ? ? ? unsigned int mpidr; >> + ? ? ? unsigned int cpu; >> + >> + ? ? ? /* If the cpu topology has been already set, just return */ >> + ? ? ? if (cpuid_topo->core_id != -1) >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return; > > If the code calls store_cpu_topology but with no effect because it was > already called before, that means it shouldn't be called at all, no ? > IMHO, this test should be removed or at least add a WARN_ONCE. > We will call smp_store_cpu_info each time the cpu will be plugged. But once set, we don't need to update topology information >> + >> + ? ? ? mpidr = hard_smp_mpidr(); >> + >> + ? ? ? /* create cpu topology mapping */ >> + ? ? ? if (mpidr& ?(0x3<< ?30)) { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* This is a multiprocessor system >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* multiprocessor format& ?multiprocessor mode field are >> set >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*/ >> + >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (mpidr& ?(0x1<< ?24)) { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* core performance interdependency */ >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->thread_id = (mpidr& ?0x3); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->core_id = ?((mpidr>> ?8)& ?0xF); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->socket_id = ((mpidr>> ?16)& ?0xFF); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } else { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* normal core interdependency */ >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->core_id = (mpidr& ?0x3); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->socket_id = ((mpidr>> ?8)& ?0xF); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } >> + ? ? ? } else { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* This is an uniprocessor system >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* we are in multiprocessor format but uniprocessor system >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* or in the old uniprocessor format >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*/ >> + >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->core_id = 0; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid_topo->socket_id = -1; >> + ? ? ? } >> + >> + ? ? ? /* update core and thread sibling masks */ >> + ? ? ? for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct cputopo_arm *cpu_topo =&(cpu_topology[cpu]); >> + >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (cpuid_topo->socket_id == cpu_topo->socket_id) { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid,&cpu_topo->core_sibling); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (cpu != cpuid) >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? &cpuid_topo->core_sibling); >> + >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (cpuid_topo->core_id == cpu_topo->core_id) { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? &cpu_topo->thread_sibling); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (cpu != cpuid) >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, >> + >> &cpuid_topo->thread_sibling); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } >> + ? ? ? } >> + ? ? ? smp_wmb(); >> + >> + ? ? ? printk(KERN_INFO "cpu %u : thread %d cpu %d, socket %d, mpidr >> %x\n", >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpuid, cpu_topology[cpuid].thread_id, >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_topology[cpuid].core_id, >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_topology[cpuid].socket_id, mpidr); >> + >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * init_cpu_topology is called at boot when only one cpu is running >> + * which prevent simultaneous write access to cpu_topology array >> + */ >> +void init_cpu_topology(void) >> +{ >> + ? ? ? unsigned int cpu; >> + >> + ? ? ? /* init core mask */ >> + ? ? ? for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct cputopo_arm *cpu_topo =&(cpu_topology[cpu]); >> + >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_topo->thread_id = -1; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_topo->core_id = ?-1; > > nit : extra space ok >> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_topo->socket_id = -1; >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling); >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling); >> + ? ? ? } >> + ? ? ? smp_wmb(); >> +} > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/