lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/2] Add RISC-V cpu topology
Στις 2018-11-07 14:06, Mark Rutland έγραψε:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 04:31:34AM +0200, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
>> Mark and Sundeep thanks a lot for your feedback, I guess you convinced
>> me that having a device tree binding for the scheduler is not a
>> correct approach. It's not a device after all and I agree that the
>> device tree shouldn't become an OS configuration file.
>
> Good to hear.
>
>> Regarding multiple levels of shared resources my point is that since
>> cpu-map doesn't contain any information of what is shared among the
>> cluster/core members it's not easy to do any further translation. Last
>> time I checked the arm code that uses cpu-map, it only defines one
>> domain for SMT, one for MC and then everything else is ignored. No
>> matter how many clusters have been defined, anything above the core
>> level is the same (and then I guess you started talking about adding
>> "packages" on the representation side).
>
> While cpu-map doesn't contain that information today, we can *add* that
> information to the cpu-map binding if necessary.
>
>> The reason I proposed to have a binding for the scheduler directly is
>> not only because it's simpler and closer to what really happens in the
>> code, it also makes more sense to me than the combination of cpu-map
>> with all the related mappings e.g. for numa or caches or power
>> domains etc.
>>
>> However you are right we could definitely augment cpu-map to include
>> support for what I'm saying and clean things up, and since you are
>> open about improving it here is a proposal that I hope you find
>> interesting:
>>
>> At first let's get rid of the <thread> nodes, they don't make sense:
>>
>> thread0 {
>> cpu = <&CPU0>;
>> };
>>
>> A thread node can't have more than one cpu entry and any properties
>> should be on the cpu node itself, so it doesn't / can't add any
>> more information. We could just have an array of cpu nodes on the
>> <core> node, it's much cleaner this way.
>>
>> core0 {
>> members = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
>> };
>
> Hold on. Rather than reinventing things from first principles, can we
> please discuss what you want to *achieve*, i.e. what information you
> need?
>
> Having a node is not a significant cost, and there are reasons we may
> want thread nodes. For example, it means that we can always refer to
> any
> level of topology with a phandle, and we might want to describe
> thread-affine devices in future.
>

You can use the phandle of the cpu node, the thread node doesn't add
anything more than complexity to the representation.

> There are a tonne of existing bindings that are ugly, but re-inventing
> them for taste reasons alone is more costly to the ecosystem than
> simply
> using the existing bindings. We avoid re-inventing bindings unless
> there
> is a functional problem e.g. cases which they cannot possibly describe.
>

We are talking about using something for RISC-V and possibly common
across
different archs and, I don't see why we should keep the ugliness of a
binding spec plus in this case the <trhead> node can't possibly describe
anything else than a cpu=<node> alias, it's redundant.

>> Then let's allow the cluster and core nodes to accept attributes that
>> are
>> common for the cpus they contain. Right now this is considered
>> invalid.
>>
>> For power domains we have a generic binding described on
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>> which basically says that we need to put power-domains = <power domain
>> specifiers>
>> attribute on each of the cpu nodes.
>
> FWIW, given this is arguably topological, I'm not personally averse to
> describing this in the cpu-map, if that actually gains us more than the
> complexity require to support it.
>
> Given we don't do this for device power domains, I suspect that it's
> simpler to stick with the existing binding.
>
>> The same happens with the capacity binding specified for arm on
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpu-capacity.txt
>> which says we should add the capacity-dmips-mhz on each of the cpu
>> nodes.
>
> The cpu-map was intended to expose topological dtails, and this isn't
> really a topological property. For example, Arm DynamIQ systems can
> have
> heterogeneous CPUs within clusters.
>
> I do not think it's worth moving this, tbh.
>
>> The same also happens with the generic numa binding on
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
>> which says we should add the nuna-node-id on each of the cpu nodes.
>
> Is there a strong gain from moving this?
>
> [...]
>

Right now with the device tree spec and the above bindings we can
use the information from cpu nodes to infer the cache topology,
the memory topology, the power domain topology etc.

We have of_find_next_cache_node and of_find_last_cache_level for example
that use "next-level-cache" and are used on powerpc (where this spec
comes
from), that we can further build on top of them (since this is now part
of the device tree spec anyway), to e.g. populate the levels of cache,
the levels of shared cache and finally create cpu masks for the
different
cache sharing levels.

This is standards-compliant, arch-independent (they are on of/base.c),
and
it provides a concrete hint on CPU topology rather grouping harts to
classes
like "core", "package", "socket", "cluster" etc that don't mean anything
specific and we assume to map to specific levels of cache sharing.

The same goes for the power domain topology, numa topology, or for
understanding
how the cpus are grouped in terms of capacity, we can always just use
the
above bindings on cpu nodes and be done with it.

The way I see it cpu-map doesn't add anything new to the spec at this
point, it's just there for convenience so that people don't have to add
all
these infos on the cpu nodes. Instead of adding cache nodes and use the
next-level-cache property like the device tree spec says, we have
cpu-map
that presents how the harts are "packed" inside the chip, assuming that
their packing also aligns on how they share their caches (they say
nothing about how they share their power domain or other attributes).

In a sense it goes against your rule of "re-inventing them for taste
reasons
alone is more costly to the ecosystem than simply using the existing
bindings",
I fail to see anything else than "taste reasons" when it comes to
cpu-map,
since there are existing bindings for inferring the CPU topology
already,
they are just not that convenient.

I'm proposing to add the option (not enforce) of adding those attributes
that are meant to be used on cpu nodes, on the various groups/classes
of the cpu-map, this way cpu-map will provide something more meaningful
and at least improve the representation side of things. On the
implementation
side it might save us the burden of infering the topology from parsing
all cpu
nodes each time. It's also backwards compatible with what you already
have, the only thing that's not backwards compatible is the removal
of the <thread> node, which I don't think is such a big deal to fix.

>> Finally from the examples above I'd like to stress out that the
>> distinction
>> between a cluster and a core doesn't make much sense and it also makes
>> the
>> representation more complicated. To begin with, how would you call the
>> setup
>> on HiFive Unleashed ? A cluster of 4 cores that share the same L3
>> cache ?
>
> Not knowing much about the hardware, I can't really say.
>
> I'm not sure I follow why the distinction between a cluster and a core
> is non-sensical. A cluster is always a collection of cores.
>
> A hart could be a core in its own right, or it could be a thread under
> a
> core, which shares functional units with other harts within that core.
>
> Arguably, we could have mandated that the topology always needed to
> describe down to a thread, even if a core only had a single thread.
> That
> ship has sailed, however.
>

So we agree, the "core" doesn't say anything useful regarding the
topology,
why keep using this distinction on a binding for RISC-V and possibly
other
archs (since we are also talking on an arch-independent approach) ?

Regards,
Nick

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-08 14:48    [W:0.141 / U:5.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site