On 8 March 2018 at 17:50, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.lin...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 03/08/2018 11:27 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> On 8 March 2018 at 17:24, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.lin...@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On 03/08/2018 07:13 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Add a ACPI Processor Properties Topology Table (PPTT) to the SynQuacer >>>> builds. This information is used by the OS to tune the scheduler. >>>> >>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> This produces the following topology after applying Jeremy's patches: >>>> >>>> $ lstopo-no-graphics >>>> Machine (31GB) >>>> Package L#0 + L3 L#0 (4096KB) >>>> L2 L#0 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#0 (32KB) + L1i L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0 + PU L#0 (P#0) >>>> L1d L#1 (32KB) + L1i L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1 + PU L#1 (P#1) >>>> L2 L#1 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#2 (32KB) + L1i L#2 (32KB) + Core L#2 + PU L#2 (P#2) >>>> L1d L#3 (32KB) + L1i L#3 (32KB) + Core L#3 + PU L#3 (P#3) >>>> L2 L#2 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#4 (32KB) + L1i L#4 (32KB) + Core L#4 + PU L#4 (P#4) >>>> L1d L#5 (32KB) + L1i L#5 (32KB) + Core L#5 + PU L#5 (P#5) >>>> L2 L#3 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#6 (32KB) + L1i L#6 (32KB) + Core L#6 + PU L#6 (P#6) >>>> L1d L#7 (32KB) + L1i L#7 (32KB) + Core L#7 + PU L#7 (P#7) >>>> L2 L#4 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#8 (32KB) + L1i L#8 (32KB) + Core L#8 + PU L#8 (P#8) >>>> L1d L#9 (32KB) + L1i L#9 (32KB) + Core L#9 + PU L#9 (P#9) >>>> L2 L#5 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#10 (32KB) + L1i L#10 (32KB) + Core L#10 + PU L#10 (P#10) >>>> L1d L#11 (32KB) + L1i L#11 (32KB) + Core L#11 + PU L#11 (P#11) >>>> L2 L#6 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#12 (32KB) + L1i L#12 (32KB) + Core L#12 + PU L#12 (P#12) >>>> L1d L#13 (32KB) + L1i L#13 (32KB) + Core L#13 + PU L#13 (P#13) >>>> L2 L#7 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#14 (32KB) + L1i L#14 (32KB) + Core L#14 + PU L#14 (P#14) >>>> L1d L#15 (32KB) + L1i L#15 (32KB) + Core L#15 + PU L#15 (P#15) >>>> L2 L#8 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#16 (32KB) + L1i L#16 (32KB) + Core L#16 + PU L#16 (P#16) >>>> L1d L#17 (32KB) + L1i L#17 (32KB) + Core L#17 + PU L#17 (P#17) >>>> L2 L#9 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#18 (32KB) + L1i L#18 (32KB) + Core L#18 + PU L#18 (P#18) >>>> L1d L#19 (32KB) + L1i L#19 (32KB) + Core L#19 + PU L#19 (P#19) >>>> L2 L#10 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#20 (32KB) + L1i L#20 (32KB) + Core L#20 + PU L#20 (P#20) >>>> L1d L#21 (32KB) + L1i L#21 (32KB) + Core L#21 + PU L#21 (P#21) >>>> L2 L#11 (256KB) >>>> L1d L#22 (32KB) + L1i L#22 (32KB) + Core L#22 + PU L#22 (P#22) >>>> L1d L#23 (32KB) + L1i L#23 (32KB) + Core L#23 + PU L#23 (P#23) >>>> HostBridge L#0 >>>> PCIBridge >>>> PCIBridge >>>> PCI 1b21:0612 >>>> Block(Disk) L#0 "sda" >>>> HostBridge L#3 >>>> PCI 10de:128b >>>> GPU L#1 "renderD128" >>>> GPU L#2 "card0" >>>> GPU L#3 "controlD64" >>>> >>>> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/AcpiTables/AcpiTables.inf | 1 + >>>> Silicon/Socionext/SynQuacer/AcpiTables/Pptt.aslc | 221 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> >>> >>> So, the above looks good. OTOH, this is yet another manually >>> created/hard-coded ACPI table, subject to change every-time another SOC >>> is >>> released. I have a couple similar ones, but haven't post them because I >>> believe the HiSi folks have done us a favor and created a table generator >>> which does 90% of this work by probing the hardware, and creating a >>> "compressed" representation of the table. Leaving the individual >>> platforms >>> to only fill out LLCs and such which can't be probed. >>> >>> It would be great if the remaining HiSi bits were removed and the whole >>> thing made generic enough to plug in to these individual platforms, so >>> that >>> they only need supply their nonstandard bits and the rest is taken care >>> of. >>> >> >> Yeah, I am aware of that. But to be honest, for a platform such as >> this one, where the information is 100% static, I'd much rather have a >> single .c file like this that never changes once you check it in. >> > > Maybe, but even if there is never an identical machine with a few cores > extra (or removed), you have to deal with the possibility that the standard > is going to be updated (say to add a leaf node flag). If/when that happens > you now have the technical debt of having to go manually touch the tables vs > updating the generator code and being done with it across all the platforms. > Particularly since other people are just going to take the same shortcut > next time of just copy-pasting this table and tweaking it, rather than > trying to create a library out of the HiSi code.
I agree up to a point, and I think we are conflating two different things here. I am all for abstracting PPTT table generation, but only if it doesn't move processing of information known at compile time to runtime. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
