Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

[Vincent Guittot]

On 1 January 2014 06:00, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 12/18/2013 06:43 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> This patch applies on top of the two patches [1][2] that have been proposed by
>> Peter for creating a new way to initialize sched_domain. It includes some minor
>> compilation fixes and a trial of using this new method on ARM platform.
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/239
>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/449
>>
>> Based on the results of this tests, my feeling about this new way to init the
>> sched_domain is a bit mitigated.
>>
>> The good point is that I have been able to create the same sched_domain
>> topologies than before and even more complex ones (where a subset of the cores
>> in a cluster share their powergating capabilities). I have described various
>> topology results below.
>>
>> I use a system that is made of a dual cluster of quad cores with hyperthreading
>> for my examples.
>>
>> If one cluster (0-7) can powergate its cores independantly but not the other
>> cluster (8-15) we have the following topology, which is equal to what I had
>> previously:
>>
>> CPU0:
>> domain 0: span 0-1 level: SMT
>>     flags: SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
>>     groups: 0 1
>>   domain 1: span 0-7 level: MC
>>       flags: SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
>>       groups: 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
>>     domain 2: span 0-15 level: CPU
>>         flags:
>>         groups: 0-7 8-15
>>
>> CPU8
>> domain 0: span 8-9 level: SMT
>>     flags: SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
>>     groups: 8 9
>>   domain 1: span 8-15 level: MC
>>       flags: SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
>>       groups: 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15
>>     domain 2: span 0-15 level CPU
>>         flags:
>>         groups: 8-15 0-7
>>
>> We can even describe some more complex topologies if a susbset (2-7) of the
>> cluster can't powergate independatly:
>>
>> CPU0:
>> domain 0: span 0-1 level: SMT
>>     flags: SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
>>     groups: 0 1
>>   domain 1: span 0-7 level: MC
>>       flags: SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
>>       groups: 0-1 2-7
>>     domain 2: span 0-15 level: CPU
>>         flags:
>>         groups: 0-7 8-15
>>
>> CPU2:
>> domain 0: span 2-3 level: SMT
>>     flags: SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
>>     groups: 0 1
>>   domain 1: span 2-7 level: MC
>>       flags: SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN
>>       groups: 2-7 4-5 6-7
>>     domain 2: span 0-7 level: MC
>>         flags: SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
>>         groups: 2-7 0-1
>>       domain 3: span 0-15 level: CPU
>>           flags:
>>           groups: 0-7 8-15
>>
>> In this case, we have an aditionnal sched_domain MC level for this subset (2-7)
>> of cores so we can trigger some load balance in this subset before doing that
>> on the complete cluster (which is the last level of cache in my example)
>>
>> We can add more levels that will describe other dependency/independency like
>> the frequency scaling dependency and as a result the final sched_domain
>> topology will have additional levels (if they have not been removed during
>> the degenerate sequence)
>
> The design looks good to me. In my opinion information like P-states and
> C-states dependency can be kept separate from the topology levels, it
> might get too complicated unless the information is tightly coupled to
> the topology.
>
>>
>> My concern is about the configuration of the table that is used to create the
>> sched_domain. Some levels are "duplicated" with different flags configuration
>
> I do not feel this is a problem since the levels are not duplicated,
> rather they have different properties within them which is best
> represented by flags like you have introduced in this patch.
>
>> which make the table not easily readable and we must also take care of the
>> order  because parents have to gather all cpus of its childs. So we must
>> choose which capabilities will be a subset of the other one. The order is
>
> The sched domain levels which have SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN set is expected
> to have cpus which are a subset of the cpus that this domain would have
> included had this flag not been set. In addition to this every higher
> domain, irrespective of SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN being set, will include all
> cpus of the lower domains. As far as I see, this patch does not change
> these assumptions. Hence I am unable to imagine a scenario when the
> parent might not include all cpus of its children domain. Do you have
> such a scenario in mind which can arise due to this patch ?

My patch doesn't have issue because i have added only 1 layer which is
always a subset of the current cache level topology but if we add
another feature with another layer, we have to decide which feature
will be a subset of the other one.

Vincent

>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/