[PATCH] sched: topology: make cache topology separate from cpu topology

[王擎]

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 13:59, Qing Wang <wangqing@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> From: Wang Qing <wangqing@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Some architectures(e.g. ARM64), caches are implemented below:
>> >> >> >> >> cluster:                     ****** cluster 0 *****      ****** cluster 1 *****
>> >> >> >> >> core:                         0      1          2      3          4      5           6      7
>> >> >> >> (add cache level 1)        c0    c1        c2    c3         c4    c5         c6    c7
>> >> >> >> >> cache(Leveln):         **cache0**  **cache1**  **cache2**  **cache3**
>> >> >> >> (add cache level 3)        *************share level 3 cache ***************
>> >> >> >> >> sd_llc_id(current):     0      0          0      0          4      4           4      4
>> >> >> >> >> sd_llc_id(should be): 0      0          2      2          4      4           6      6
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Here, n always be 2 in ARM64, but others are also possible.
>> >> >> >> core[0,1] form a complex(ARMV9),  which share L2 cache, core[2,3] is the same.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Caches and cpus have different topology, this causes cpus_share_cache()
>> >> >> >> >> return the wrong value, which will affect the CPU load balance.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >What does your current scheduler topology  look like?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >For CPU 0 to 3, do you have the below ?
>> >> >> >> >DIE [0     -     3] [4-7]
>> >> >> >> >MC  [0] [1] [2] [3]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The current scheduler topology consistent with CPU topology:
>> >> >> >> DIE  [0-7]
>> >> >> >> MC  [0-3] [4-7]  (SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)
>> >> >> >> Most Android phones have this topology.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >But you would like something like below for cpu 0-1 instead ?
>> >> >> >> >DIE [0     -     3] [4-7]
>> >> >> >> >CLS [0 - 1] [2 - 3]
>> >> >> >> >MC  [0] [1]
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >with SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES only set to MC level ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We don't change the current scheduler topology, but the
>> >> >> >> cache topology should be separated like below:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The scheduler topology is not only cpu topology but a mixed of cpu and
>> >> >> >cache/memory cache topology
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> [0-7]                          (shared level 3 cache )
>> >> >> >> [0-1] [2-3][4-5][6-7]   (shared level 2 cache )
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So you don't  bother the intermediate cluster level which is even simpler.
>> >> >> >you have to modify generic arch topology so that cpu_coregroup_mask
>> >> >> >returns the correct cpu mask directly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You will notice a llc_sibling field that is currently used by acpi but
>> >> >> >not DT to return llc cpu mask
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> cpu_topology[].llc_sibling describe the last level cache of whole system,
>> >> >> not in the sched_domain.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> in the above cache topology, llc_sibling is 0xff([0-7]) , it describes
>> >> >
>> >> >If llc_sibling was 0xff([0-7] on your system, you would have only one level:
>> >> >MC[0-7]
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, but I don't get it, why llc_sibling was 0xff([0-7] means MC[0-7]?
>> >> In our system(Android), llc_sibling is indeed 0xff([0-7]) , because they
>> >> shared the llc(L3), but we also have two level:
>> >> DIE [0-7]
>> >> MC [0-3][4-6]
>> >> It makes sense, [0-3] are little cores, [4-7] are bit cores, se only up migrate
>> >> when misfit. We won't change it.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> the L3 cache sibling, but sd_llc_id describes the maximum shared cache
>> >> >> in sd, which should be [0-1] instead of [0-3].
>> >> >
>> >> >sd_llc_id describes the last sched_domain with SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES.
>> >> >If you want llc to be [0-3] make sure that the
>> >> >sched_domain_topology_level array returns the correct cpumask with
>> >> >this flag
>> >>
>> >> Acturely, we want sd_llc to be [0-1] [2-3], but if the MC domain don't have
>> >
>> >sd_llc_id refers to a scheduler domain but your patch breaks this so
>> >if you want a llc that reflects this topo:  [0-1] [2-3] you must
>> >provide a sched_domain level with this topo
>>
>> Maybe we should add a shared-cache level(SC), like what CLS does:
>>
>> DIE  [0-7] (shared level 3 cache, SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)
>> MC  [0-3] [4-7]  (not SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)
>> CLS  (if necessary)
>> SC    [0-1][2-3][4-5][6-7] (shared level 2 cache, SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)
>> SMT (if necessary)
>>
>> SC means a couple of CPUs which are placed closely by sharing
>> mid-level caches, but not enough to be a cluster.
>
>what you name SC above looks the same as CLS which should not be mixed
>with Arm cluster terminology

Do you mean cluster is equal to shared cache instead of containing, SC just 
means shared cache, but not form a cluster, a CLS can contain many SCs.

If as you said, SC looks the same as CLS, should we rename CLS to SC to 
avoid confusion?

Thanks,
Wang