Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add CPU topology

[Vincent Guittot]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 10:34, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/6/19 10:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 09:49, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Vincent,
> >>
> >> On Thursday 06 Jun 2019 at 09:05:16 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> Hi Quentin,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 19:21, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Friday 17 May 2019 at 14:55:19 (-0700), Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>>> Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-05-16 04:54:45)
> >>>>>> (cc'ing Andy's correct email address)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:46 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-05-13 04:54:12)
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:31 PM Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:13 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The 8 CPU cores of the SDM845 are organized in two clusters of 4 big
> >>>>>>>>>> ("gold") and 4 little ("silver") cores. Add a cpu-map node to the DT
> >>>>>>>>>> that describes this topology.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is partly true. There are two groups of gold and silver cores,
> >>>>>>>>> but AFAICT they are in a single cluster, not two separate ones. SDM845
> >>>>>>>>> is one of the early examples of ARM's Dynamiq architecture.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I noticed that this patch sneaked through for this merge window but
> >>>>>>>>> perhaps we can whip up a quick fix for -rc2?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And please find attached a patch to fix this up. Andy, since this
> >>>>>>>> hasn't landed yet (can we still squash this into the original patch?),
> >>>>>>>> I couldn't add a Fixes tag.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I had the same concern. Thanks for catching this. I suspect this must
> >>>>>>> cause some problem for IPA given that it can't discern between the big
> >>>>>>> and little "power clusters"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Both EAS and IPA, I believe. It influences the scheduler's view of the
> >>>>>> the topology.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And EAS and IPA are OK with the real topology? I'm just curious if
> >>>>> changing the topology to reflect reality will be a problem for those
> >>>>> two.
> >>>>
> >>>> FWIW, neither EAS nor IPA depends on this. Not the upstream version of
> >>>> EAS at least (which is used in recent Android kernels -- 4.19+).
> >>>>
> >>>> But doing this is still required for other things in the scheduler (the
> >>>> so-called 'capacity-awareness' code). So until we have a better
> >>>> solution, this patch is doing the right thing.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure to catch what you mean ?
> >>> Which so-called 'capacity-awareness' code are you speaking about ? and
> >>> what is the problem ?
> >>
> >> I'm talking about the wake-up path. ATM select_idle_sibling() is totally
> >> unaware of capacity differences. In its current form, this function
> >> basically assumes that all CPUs in a given sd_llc have the same
> >> capacity, which would be wrong if we had a single MC level for SDM845.
> >> So, until select_idle_sibling() is 'fixed' to be capacity-aware, we need
> >> two levels of sd for asymetric systems (including DynamIQ) so the
> >> wake_cap() story actually works.
> >>
> >> I hope that clarifies it :)
> >
> > hmm... does this justifies this wrong topology ?
> > select_idle_sibling() is called only when system is overloaded and
> > scheduler disables the EAS path
> > In this case, the scheduler looks either for an idle cpu or for evenly
> > spreading the loads
> > This is maybe not always optimal and should probably be fixed but
> > doesn't justifies a wrong topology description IMHO
>
> The big/Little cluster detection in wake_cap() doesn't work anymore with
> DynamIQ w/o Phanton (DIE) domain. So the decision of going sis() or slow
> path is IMHO broken.

That's probably not the right thread to discuss this further but i'm
not sure to understand why wake_cap() doesn't work as it compares the
capacity_orig of local cpu and prev cpu which are the same whatever
the sche domainÅ

> But I support the idea of not introducing Phantom Domains in device tree
> and fix wake_cap() instead.