On 8 March 2018 at 21:48, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.lin...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 03/08/2018 02:38 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> On 8 March 2018 at 17:59, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> BTW the architecture does not permit inferring cache geometry from the >> CCSIDR field: >> >> """ >> The parameters NumSets, Associativity, and LineSize in these registers >> define the architecturally visible parameters >> that are required for the cache maintenance by Set/Way instructions. >> They are not guaranteed to represent the actual >> microarchitectural features of a design. You cannot make any inference >> about the actual sizes of caches based on >> these parameters. >> """ >> >> and we know that there are cores that describe their caches as having >> a single set and a single way, because they don't implement >> maintenance by set/way at all and can only be cleaned or invalidated >> wholesale. >> > > That is true in the architectural sense, but as we all know for many of > these machines it can be inferred, and since the firmware blobs would be per > machine it would be a question of overriding/correcting whatever is wrong > per machine rather than having the entire table be per machine. >
Yes, but my point is that if you're doing that, why do you read the cache registers at all, and not simply fill out all the info. Firmware is tightly coupled to the platform anyway, unlike the kernel, so I don't see the value in having runtime code that infers information that never changes. > Put another way, you can support a wide swath of machines with A5x & A7x's > with a single piece of code which only hard-codes the L3 (if any) > information. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
