Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] powerpc/smp: Dont assume l2-cache to be superset of sibling

From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:30:11 +0530

Hi Srikar,

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:18AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Current code assumes that cpumask of cpus sharing a l2-cache mask will
> always be a superset of cpu_sibling_mask.
> 
> Lets stop that assumption.
> 
> Cc: linuxppc-dev <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Oliver OHalloran <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Nathan Lynch <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Michael Neuling <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Anton Blanchard <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> index 7d430fc536cc..875f57e41355 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -1198,6 +1198,7 @@ static bool update_mask_by_l2(int cpu, struct cpumask *(*mask_fn)(int))
>  	struct device_node *l2_cache, *np;
>  	int i;
> 
> +	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mask_fn(cpu));

It would be good to comment why do we need to do set the CPU in the
l2-mask if we don't have a l2cache domain.

>  	l2_cache = cpu_to_l2cache(cpu);
>  	if (!l2_cache)
>  		return false;
> @@ -1284,29 +1285,30 @@ static void add_cpu_to_masks(int cpu)
>  	 * add it to it's own thread sibling mask.
>  	 */
>  	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
> +	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_core_mask(cpu));
> 
>  	for (i = first_thread; i < first_thread + threads_per_core; i++)
>  		if (cpu_online(i))
>  			set_cpus_related(i, cpu, cpu_sibling_mask);
> 
>  	add_cpu_to_smallcore_masks(cpu);
> -	/*
> -	 * Copy the thread sibling mask into the cache sibling mask
> -	 * and mark any CPUs that share an L2 with this CPU.
> -	 */
> -	for_each_cpu(i, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu))
> -		set_cpus_related(cpu, i, cpu_l2_cache_mask);
>  	update_mask_by_l2(cpu, cpu_l2_cache_mask);
> 
> -	/*
> -	 * Copy the cache sibling mask into core sibling mask and mark
> -	 * any CPUs on the same chip as this CPU.
> -	 */
> -	for_each_cpu(i, cpu_l2_cache_mask(cpu))
> -		set_cpus_related(cpu, i, cpu_core_mask);
> +	if (pkg_id == -1) {
> +		struct cpumask *(*mask)(int) = cpu_sibling_mask;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Copy the sibling mask into core sibling mask and
> +		 * mark any CPUs on the same chip as this CPU.
> +		 */
> +		if (shared_caches)
> +			mask = cpu_l2_cache_mask;
> +

Now that we decoupling the containment relationship between
sibling_mask and l2-cache mask, should we set all the CPUs that are
both in cpu_sibling_mask(cpu) as well as cpu_l2_mask(cpu) in
cpu_core_mask ? 

> +		for_each_cpu(i, mask(cpu))
> +			set_cpus_related(cpu, i, cpu_core_mask);
> 
> -	if (pkg_id == -1)
>  		return;
> +	}
> 
>  	for_each_cpu(i, cpu_online_mask)
>  		if (get_physical_package_id(i) == pkg_id)
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.