Hi,
as agreed in the LOD call today I asked Arunachalam to share his demo
set-up guidelines following his demo at LVC:
https://connect.linaro.org/resources/lvc21/lvc21-305/
He agreed to share the FVP based set-up - so that it can be
reused/refactored with QEmu by Huawei developers who are
interested.
For any questions/query let's use this public thread.
Thank you very much.
Lorenzo
On 7/22/21 1:37 PM, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> Regarding squashing scheduler level, what you say is true. However,
> as long as we are changing code based on if(sched_cluster_present)
> in wake_affine path, we need to care about this.
I'm wondering if we can use SD_CLUSTER flag I introduced in my
patch 2 sent yesterday to determine if we have a cluster
sched domain instead of sched_cluster_present? So if we squash
the cluster sched domain we'll skip the logic for the sched domain,
instead of having a global flag.
>
>> If the CLS domain equals the MC domain, finally the CLS will stay and
>> MC will be destroyed. Nothing need to do then. If the CLS domain equals
>> the SMT domain, SMT will stay and we need to modify the
>> @sched_cluster_present then. But I doubt whether there is a real case
>> than CLS will be the same as SMT.
>
> It doesn't matter if there is a real hardware. What does matter is
> how the topology patch(patch 1) will parse ACPI table and whether
> ACPI has a particular flag for cluster.
>
> Thanks
> Barry
>
Barry & Yicong,
I've added this series to allow for run time control of cluster
scheduling via /proc/sys/kernel/sched_cluster_enabled.
I've defaulted the setting to off as this is probably the safest
option and will encounter the least resistance.
I've also added a SD_CLUSTER flag in patch 2. It may be handy
if we want to do any cluster specific scheduling operation in
a cluster sched domain.
This could be a follow on after the main patchset is posted.
I've tested it on my x86 machine. Wonder if you can test
it on your ARM system to make sure it works properly there.
Will appreciate your feedback and review.
Tim
Tim Chen (3):
sched: Create SDTL_SKIP flag to skip topology level
sched: Add SD_CLUSTER topology flag to cluster sched domain
sched: Add runtime knob sysctl_sched_cluster_enabled
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 8 +++++
drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 7 ++++
include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h | 7 ++++
include/linux/sched/sysctl.h | 6 ++++
include/linux/sched/topology.h | 3 +-
include/linux/topology.h | 7 ++++
kernel/sched/core.c | 1 +
kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 ++++
kernel/sched/topology.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
kernel/sysctl.c | 11 +++++++
10 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.20.1
Hi,
LOC (Linaro OP-TEE Contribution) monthly meeting is planned to take place
on Thursday July22(a)17.00 (UTC+2).
Looking for topics from people. If you have anything you'd like to discuss,
please let us know.
Meeting details:
---------------
Date/time: Thursday Jul22(a)17.00 (UTC+2)
https://everytimezone.com/s/d926310d
Connection details: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/
Meeting notes: http://bit.ly/loc-notes
Regards,
Ruchika on behalf of the Linaro OP-TEE team
Hi all,
Just a kind reminder that the LOD meeting in July has been rescheduled to
23rd, Friday this week.
In this meeting, we will have a good topic from Alex Bennée to
introduce QEMU 6.1 and future work.
Please let me know if you have any other topics.
Thanks,
Jammy
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 02:21:16PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 01:10:52PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron via Linaro-open-discussions wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:17:33 +0000
> > Jonathan Cameron via Linaro-open-discussions <linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:39:15 +0000
> > > Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions <linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:33:42PM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > > [mailto:linaro-open-discussions-bounces@op-lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 9:32 PM
> > > > > > To: Jammy Zhou <jammy.zhou(a)linaro.org>
> > > > > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > > <linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Linaro-open-discussions] LOD Meeting Agenda for June 28
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 12:37:03AM +0000, Jammy Zhou via Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are only one week away from the next LOD meeting on June 28. If you
> > > > > > > have any topic to discuss, please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could discuss the virt CPU hotplug status/forward plan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know if Barry's scheduler discussion can benefit from an LOD
> > > > > > session, please chime in if that's the case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Lorenzo,
> > > > > Thanks for asking. I have no important updates at this time. That
> > > > > discussion is mainly for co-working with Tim Chen on the plan of
> > > > > upstreaming and benchmarking, also figuring out whether the patches
> > > > > are leading to the same result on arm and x86 platforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AOB ?
> > > >
> > > > Ok. So, anything else to discuss other than the PSCI KVM patches
> > > > that are currently on ML ? Jonathan, Salil, anyone please do let
> > > > me know.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On the near term horizon is the confidential compute stuff that there
> > > is an event about tomorrow, but next week feels a little early to try
> > > and have a detailed discussion about that (I assume)?
> > >
> > > A few other things will surface by next month, but not next week ;)
> > >
> > > Otherwise, nothing immediate jumps out to me, beyond any useful
> > > discussion that can be had around the PSCI KVM patches you mention.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> >
> > Leaving that one aside, it seems the main open question from our side
> > is around planning / progress on steps for the vCPU hotplug.
> >
> > Perhaps that's something best formulated over email...
> >
> > My current understanding is that next item would be the Guest Kernel
> > changes? Perhaps a good target for sending out an RFC on that would
> > be just after the merge window?
>
> I am afraid we will have to rework the approach and implement this
> through ACPI only (kernel/spec changes) which is both good and bad news.
>
> I am focusing on getting the ACPI specs agreed/changed in the Arm world,
> it will take me a while, hopefully I can expedite, that's all I can
> share here.
Next week I should be able to let you know what we are pursuing going
forward, it is just to let you know that we are working on it to
converge as soon as possible. The end result should not be massively
different from Salil's initial work but there are lots of details we are
vetting to make sure it is rock solid (and that everyone in the ARM
world is happy with it, again, I can't share the fine grain details
here).
Have a good week end,
Lorenzo
Hi,
The QEMU project will have tagged rc0 on the 20th so we will know with a
fair bit of certainty the features that will make it into 6.1. We'll
also be transitioning from our Connect->Connect 6 month planning cycle
to the upstream aligned planning. There will be one more QEMU release
this year which will be 6.2.
I propose to present the following:
- what made it into 6.1
- what we are aiming to get into 6.2
- what we are thinking about next
There have been some fairly big ARM features announced recently so I'd like
to cover the teams initial thoughts about what would be needed to
successfully upstream things like CCA and SME. It's intended to be a
collaborative call so please come with questions and discussion points.
We are a small team so we aim to be a force multiplier for collaboration
;-)
--
Alex Bennée
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 01:10:52PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron via Linaro-open-discussions wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:17:33 +0000
> Jonathan Cameron via Linaro-open-discussions <linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:39:15 +0000
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions <linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:33:42PM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > [mailto:linaro-open-discussions-bounces@op-lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 9:32 PM
> > > > > To: Jammy Zhou <jammy.zhou(a)linaro.org>
> > > > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi via Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > <linaro-open-discussions(a)op-lists.linaro.org>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Linaro-open-discussions] LOD Meeting Agenda for June 28
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 12:37:03AM +0000, Jammy Zhou via Linaro-open-discussions
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are only one week away from the next LOD meeting on June 28. If you
> > > > > > have any topic to discuss, please let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > We could discuss the virt CPU hotplug status/forward plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if Barry's scheduler discussion can benefit from an LOD
> > > > > session, please chime in if that's the case.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lorenzo,
> > > > Thanks for asking. I have no important updates at this time. That
> > > > discussion is mainly for co-working with Tim Chen on the plan of
> > > > upstreaming and benchmarking, also figuring out whether the patches
> > > > are leading to the same result on arm and x86 platforms.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > AOB ?
> > >
> > > Ok. So, anything else to discuss other than the PSCI KVM patches
> > > that are currently on ML ? Jonathan, Salil, anyone please do let
> > > me know.
> > >
> >
> > On the near term horizon is the confidential compute stuff that there
> > is an event about tomorrow, but next week feels a little early to try
> > and have a detailed discussion about that (I assume)?
> >
> > A few other things will surface by next month, but not next week ;)
> >
> > Otherwise, nothing immediate jumps out to me, beyond any useful
> > discussion that can be had around the PSCI KVM patches you mention.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
> Leaving that one aside, it seems the main open question from our side
> is around planning / progress on steps for the vCPU hotplug.
>
> Perhaps that's something best formulated over email...
>
> My current understanding is that next item would be the Guest Kernel
> changes? Perhaps a good target for sending out an RFC on that would
> be just after the merge window?
I am afraid we will have to rework the approach and implement this
through ACPI only (kernel/spec changes) which is both good and bad news.
I am focusing on getting the ACPI specs agreed/changed in the Arm world,
it will take me a while, hopefully I can expedite, that's all I can
share here.
Lorenzo