diff mbox series

[v7,4/7] arm: Use common cpu_topology structure and functions.

Message ID 20190617185920.29581-5-atish.patra@wdc.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V | expand

Commit Message

Atish Patra June 17, 2019, 6:59 p.m. UTC 
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.
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 20 -----------
 arch/arm/kernel/topology.c      | 60 ++++-----------------------------
 drivers/base/arch_topology.c    |  4 ++-
 include/linux/arch_topology.h   |  6 ++--
 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)

Comments

Sudeep Holla June 19, 2019, 12:10 p.m. UTC | #1 
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
Sudeep Holla June 24, 2019, 3:06 p.m. UTC | #2 
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
Russell King (Oracle) June 24, 2019, 3:30 p.m. UTC | #3 
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.
Sudeep Holla June 24, 2019, 3:33 p.m. UTC | #4 
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
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h
index 2a786f54d8b8..8a0fae94d45e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h
@@ -5,26 +5,6 @@ 
 #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
 
 #include <linux/cpumask.h>
-
-struct cputopo_arm {
-	int thread_id;
-	int core_id;
-	int socket_id;
-	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_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
-
-void init_cpu_topology(void);
-void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
-const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
-
 #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
 
 /* Replace task scheduler's default frequency-invariant accounting */
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
index 60e375ce1ab2..238f1da0219c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
@@ -177,17 +177,6 @@  static inline void parse_dt_topology(void) {}
 static inline void update_cpu_capacity(unsigned int cpuid) {}
 #endif
 
- /*
- * cpu topology table
- */
-struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_topology);
-
-const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
-{
-	return &cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling;
-}
-
 /*
  * The current assumption is that we can power gate each core independently.
  * This will be superseded by DT binding once available.
@@ -197,32 +186,6 @@  const struct cpumask *cpu_corepower_mask(int cpu)
 	return &cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling;
 }
 
-static void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
-{
-	struct cputopo_arm *cpu_topo, *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
-	int cpu;
-
-	/* update core and thread sibling masks */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
-
-		if (cpuid_topo->socket_id != cpu_topo->socket_id)
-			continue;
-
-		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)
-			continue;
-
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-		if (cpu != cpuid)
-			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpuid_topo->thread_sibling);
-	}
-	smp_wmb();
-}
-
 /*
  * 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,
@@ -230,7 +193,7 @@  static void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
  */
 void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 {
-	struct cputopo_arm *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
+	struct cpu_topology *cpuid_topo = &cpu_topology[cpuid];
 	unsigned int mpidr;
 
 	/* If the cpu topology has been already set, just return */
@@ -250,12 +213,12 @@  void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 			/* core performance interdependency */
 			cpuid_topo->thread_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
 			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
-			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
+			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
 		} else {
 			/* largely independent cores */
 			cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
 			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
-			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
+			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
 		}
 	} else {
 		/*
@@ -265,7 +228,7 @@  void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 		 */
 		cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
 		cpuid_topo->core_id = 0;
-		cpuid_topo->socket_id = -1;
+		cpuid_topo->package_id = -1;
 	}
 
 	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
@@ -275,7 +238,7 @@  void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
 	pr_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);
+		cpu_topology[cpuid].package_id, mpidr);
 }
 
 static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
@@ -298,18 +261,7 @@  static struct sched_domain_topology_level arm_topology[] = {
  */
 void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
 {
-	unsigned int cpu;
-
-	/* init core mask and capacity */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		struct cputopo_arm *cpu_topo = &(cpu_topology[cpu]);
-
-		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
-		cpu_topo->core_id =  -1;
-		cpu_topo->socket_id = -1;
-		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
-		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
-	}
+	reset_cpu_topology();
 	smp_wmb();
 
 	parse_dt_topology();
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
index 5781bb4c457c..797e3cd71bea 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
@@ -426,6 +426,7 @@  static int __init parse_dt_topology(void)
 	of_node_put(cn);
 	return ret;
 }
+#endif
 
 /*
  * cpu topology table
@@ -491,7 +492,7 @@  static void clear_cpu_topology(int cpu)
 	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
 }
 
-static void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
+void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
 {
 	unsigned int cpu;
 
@@ -526,6 +527,7 @@  __weak int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
 void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
 {
 	reset_cpu_topology();
diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
index d4e76e0a283f..d4311127970d 100644
--- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
@@ -54,11 +54,9 @@  extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
 void init_cpu_topology(void);
 void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
 const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu);
-#endif
-
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
 void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpu);
-#endif
 void remove_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid);
+void reset_cpu_topology(void);
+#endif
 
 #endif /* _LINUX_ARCH_TOPOLOGY_H_ */