On 2013-8-14 19:27, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:54:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:46:06AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 27 July 2013 12:42, Hanjun Guo <hanjun....@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> Power aware scheduling needs the cpu topology information to improve the >>>> cpu scheduler decision making. >>> >>> It's not only power aware scheduling. The scheduler already uses >>> topology and cache sharing when CONFIG_SCHED_MC and/or >>> CONFIG_SCHED_SMT are enable. So you should also add these configs for >>> arm64 so the scheduler can use it >> >> ... except that the architecture doesn't define what the AFF fields in MPIDR >> really represent. Using them to make key scheduling decisions relating to >> cache proximity seems pretty risky to me, especially given the track record >> we've seen already on AArch32 silicon. It's a convenient register if it >> contains the data we want it to contain, but we need to force ourselves to >> come to terms with reality here and simply use it as an identifier for a >> CPU. >> >> Can't we just use the device-tree to represent this topological data for >> arm64? Lorenzo has been working on bindings in this area. > > Catching up on email after holiday - I agree with Will here, we should > use DT for representing the topology (or ACPI) and not rely on the MPIDR > value. >
Ok, I'm working on the ACPI part now, Thanks for your comments. Regards Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/