diff mbox series

[v7,1/7] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries

Message ID 20190617185920.29581-2-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 
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
view of how those cores and threads are grouped.

However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.

Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the
same.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt      | 52 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Comments

Paul Walmsley June 27, 2019, 12:31 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Sudeep, Atish,

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:

> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
> with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
> representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
> hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
> view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
> 
> However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
> describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
> the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
> an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.
> 
> Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the
> same.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

This one doesn't apply cleanly here on top of v5.2-rc2, Linus's master 
branch, and next-20190626.  The reject file is below.  Am I missing 
a patch?


- Paul

--- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -185,13 +206,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
 4 - Example dts
 ===========================================
 
-Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
+Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in a single
+physical socket):
 
 cpus {
 	#size-cells = <0>;
 	#address-cells = <2>;
 
 	cpu-map {
+		socket0 {
 			cluster0 {
 				cluster0 {
 					core0 {
Atish Patra June 27, 2019, 2:18 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 6/26/19 5:31 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hi Sudeep, Atish,
> 
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:
> 
>> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>
>> The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system
>> with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
>> representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
>> hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology
>> view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
>>
>> However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to
>> describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or
>> the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by
>> an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling.
>>
>> Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the
>> same.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> 
> This one doesn't apply cleanly here on top of v5.2-rc2, Linus's master
> branch, and next-20190626.  The reject file is below.  Am I missing
> a patch?
> 

That's weird. I could apply the patch from any git tree (github or 
git.kernel.org) but not from mail or patchworks.

git log doesn't show any recent modifications of that file. I am trying 
to figure out what's wrong.
> 
> - Paul
> 
> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -185,13 +206,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
>   4 - Example dts
>   ===========================================
>   
> -Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
> +Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in a single
> +physical socket):
>   
>   cpus {
>   	#size-cells = <0>;
>   	#address-cells = <2>;
>   
>   	cpu-map {
> +		socket0 {
>   			cluster0 {
>   				cluster0 {
>   					core0 {
>
Atish Patra June 27, 2019, 7:58 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 19:18 -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> On 6/26/19 5:31 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > Hi Sudeep, Atish,
> > 
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Atish Patra wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > 
> > > The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating
> > > system
> > > with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes
> > > representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a
> > > hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical
> > > topology
> > > view of how those cores and threads are grouped.
> > > 
> > > However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not
> > > allow to
> > > describe what topology level actually represents the physical
> > > package or
> > > the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be
> > > used by
> > > an operating system to optimize resource allocation and
> > > scheduling.
> > > 
> > > Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe
> > > the
> > > same.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > 
> > This one doesn't apply cleanly here on top of v5.2-rc2, Linus's
> > master
> > branch, and next-20190626.  The reject file is below.  Am I missing
> > a patch?
> > 
> 
> That's weird. I could apply the patch from any git tree (github or 
> git.kernel.org) but not from mail or patchworks.
> 
> git log doesn't show any recent modifications of that file. I am
> trying 
> to figure out what's wrong.

The space changes in this patch caused the conflict. The patch was
generated with -b which was suggested during the initial review. 

I should removed it before sending v7. My bad.
I have fixed that and sent a v8 that should be cleanly applied on
latest master. The patch series is also available at 

https://github.com/atishp04/linux/tree/5.2-rc6_topology

Regards,
Atish
> > - Paul
> > 
> > --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> > +++ Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> > @@ -185,13 +206,15 @@ Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are
> > defined as follows:
> >   4 - Example dts
> >   ===========================================
> >   
> > -Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
> > +Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in
> > a single
> > +physical socket):
> >   
> >   cpus {
> >   	#size-cells = <0>;
> >   	#address-cells = <2>;
> >   
> >   	cpu-map {
> > +		socket0 {
> >   			cluster0 {
> >   				cluster0 {
> >   					core0 {
> > 
> 
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index b0d80c0fb265..3b8febb46dad 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@  ARM topology binding description
 In an ARM system, the hierarchy of CPUs is defined through three entities that
 are used to describe the layout of physical CPUs in the system:
 
+- socket
 - cluster
 - core
 - thread
@@ -63,21 +64,23 @@  nodes are listed.
 
 	The cpu-map node's child nodes can be:
 
-	- one or more cluster nodes
+	- one or more cluster nodes or
+	- one or more socket nodes in a multi-socket system
 
 	Any other configuration is considered invalid.
 
-The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
+The cpu-map node can only contain 4 types of child nodes:
 
+- socket node
 - cluster node
 - core node
 - thread node
 
 whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
 
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
-be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
-must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (socket/cluster/core/thread) can
+only be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the
+system must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
 invalid and therefore must be ignored.
 
 ===========================================
@@ -85,26 +88,44 @@  invalid and therefore must be ignored.
 ===========================================
 
 cpu-map child nodes must follow a naming convention where the node name
-must be "clusterN", "coreN", "threadN" depending on the node type (ie
-cluster/core/thread) (where N = {0, 1, ...} is the node number; nodes which
-are siblings within a single common parent node must be given a unique and
+must be "socketN", "clusterN", "coreN", "threadN" depending on the node type
+(ie socket/cluster/core/thread) (where N = {0, 1, ...} is the node number; nodes
+which are siblings within a single common parent node must be given a unique and
 sequential N value, starting from 0).
 cpu-map child nodes which do not share a common parent node can have the same
 name (ie same number N as other cpu-map child nodes at different device tree
 levels) since name uniqueness will be guaranteed by the device tree hierarchy.
 
 ===========================================
-3 - cluster/core/thread node bindings
+3 - socket/cluster/core/thread node bindings
 ===========================================
 
-Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
+Bindings for socket/cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
+
+- socket node
+
+	 Description: must be declared within a cpu-map node, one node
+		      per physical socket in the system. A system can
+		      contain single or multiple physical socket.
+		      The association of sockets and NUMA nodes is beyond
+		      the scope of this bindings, please refer [2] for
+		      NUMA bindings.
+
+	This node is optional for a single socket system.
+
+	The socket node name must be "socketN" as described in 2.1 above.
+	A socket node can not be a leaf node.
+
+	A socket node's child nodes must be one or more cluster nodes.
+
+	Any other configuration is considered invalid.
 
 - cluster node
 
 	 Description: must be declared within a cpu-map node, one node
 		      per cluster. A system can contain several layers of
-		      clustering and cluster nodes can be contained in parent
-		      cluster nodes.
+		      clustering within a single physical socket and cluster
+		      nodes can be contained in parent cluster nodes.
 
 	The cluster node name must be "clusterN" as described in 2.1 above.
 	A cluster node can not be a leaf node.
@@ -164,13 +185,15 @@  Bindings for cluster/cpu/thread nodes are defined as follows:
 4 - Example dts
 ===========================================
 
-Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters):
+Example 1 (ARM 64-bit, 16-cpu system, two clusters of clusters in a single
+physical socket):
 
 cpus {
 	#size-cells = <0>;
 	#address-cells = <2>;
 
 	cpu-map {
+		socket0 {
 			cluster0 {
 				cluster0 {
 					core0 {
@@ -253,6 +276,7 @@  cpus {
 				};
 			};
 		};
+	};
 
 	CPU0: cpu@0 {
 		device_type = "cpu";
@@ -473,3 +497,5 @@  cpus {
 ===============================================================================
 [1] ARM Linux kernel documentation
     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
+[2] Devicetree NUMA binding description
+    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt