[Linaro-open-discussions] Notes on Linaro Open Discussions meeting 4 Nov 2020

Lorenzo Pieralisi lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com
Wed Nov 25 13:58:38 UTC 2020


On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:51:49PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

[...]

> > Is December 2nd confirmed as next session ? If possible 3PM GMT works
> > better for me; the NUMA topic raised by Jonathan is another interesting
> > topic for debate. 
> 
> Just to check, which NUMA topic?

https://op-lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-open-discussions/2020-November/000016.html

It would be useful (for me certainly) if you can give an update on
what's still pending in the items in the discussion above (eg it is
not clear what the "PCI fix" is) + how it is linked to CXL.

The vCPU hotplug is also worth adding (even though I do not know what
was discussed at KVM forum).

Furthermore, I am keen on discussing this:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20201123065410.1915-1-lushenming@huawei.com

if the submitters are available, it would help to get some context in
relation to upstream discussions.

Thanks !
Lorenzo

> I've lost track of what we are talking about.
> 
> > Other than that we can slot in the topics that
> > weren't discussed last time:
> > 
> > https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/LOD/Linaro+Open+Discussions+Home
> > 
> > even though those require a bit of preparation so the sooner we finalize
> > the schedule the better.
> 
> Seems we have clashed with some internal Huawei activities so some people who
> would normally be active are snowed under this week.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> > 
> > Please let me know, thanks.
> > 
> > Lorenzo
> > 
> > > * DT alignment. Don't want different solutions for each firmware type.
> > > * Lorenzo / Sami to check IORT revision E is final.
> > > 
> > > SVA
> > > ===
> > > 
> > > Zangfei gave summary:
> > >  - Huawei has devices that are not PCIe but are presented as such.
> > >  - They support stall mode for SVA (spec violation)
> > >  - Resistance from kernel maintainers to maintaining a white list for any quirk. Fine to fix
> > >    it once (JPB), but not to keep doing so.
> > >  - Note that stall mode not yet supported at all (JPB to send out this cycle).
> > >  - If longer term fix need add can't be done via PCISIG etc then need to convince
> > >    PCI and SMMU maintainers.   Noted that quirk is very little code.
> > > 
> > > * Other SVA topics.
> > >   - Mentioned virtual SVA (no actually problems just expressing interest!)
> > >   - Would need Eric Auger, wasn't on topic list so Eric not on call.
> > > 
> > > AI: Nothing planned until after JPB has upstreamed stall mode. Hard to have discussion before that.
> > > 
> > > DVFS
> > > ====
> > > 
> > > guohanjun
> > > 
> > > Solutions exist for
> > > * CPU DVFS (voltage + frequency scaling)
> > > * PCIe device power states etc
> > > 
> > > No standard way of controlling Uncore voltage and frequency for ACPI based systems.
> > > 
> > > 3 options:
> > > 1. MMIO / kernel driver.
> > > 2. PSCI via trusted firmware and system management controller.
> > > 3. ACPI (wrapping up an op region and SCMI)
> > > 
> > > Clarifications / discussions.
> > >  * Vincent G: Power states, or voltage frequency of interest? Ans Voltage Freq
> > >  * Considered SCMI?  Ans: Works only for DT as SCMI under ACPI is wrapped up in AML
> > >    so looks like an ACPI interface.
> > >  * Sudeep H: Necessary to trace CPU freq?  Yes.
> > >  * Sudeep H: Why not do it in firmware entirely?  Ans. Not just CPU.  For example PCI device accessing
> > >    memory may well need the ring bus to be fast.
> > >  * Vincent G: Bandwidth affected?  Yes. VG: mobile does this by specifying a BW requirement (via SCMI.-
> > >  * Sudeep H Observed need to expose it via ACPI spec. (option 3 above).
> > >  * Sudeep H: Does PCI also need fine-grain control? We might need to add to the spec.
> > >  * Sudeep H:  What are the requirements? gaohanjun: Now we just frequency scaling. 
> > >  * Jonathan C: Noted PCI power state is not enough.  It's workload dependent.
> > >  * Sudeep H: We need to gather all the info, need to talk in ASWG about DVFS
> > >  * Jonathan C:  For now direct control probably makes sense.  Whilst it would be nice to have
> > >    a detailed enough system description in a standard way to make general software that is a
> > >    big spec job.
> > >  * Jonathan C: Seems like true standard SW will not happen any time soon.
> > > 
> > > AI: RFC to the linux-pm / linux-acpi Rafael and those in this discussion to ask about 
> > >     interest in adding per device DVFS to ACPI spec.  Possibly pursue code first ACPI
> > >     approach.
> > > 
> > > If I've miss listed or "volunteered" anyone for AIs they didn't agree to then please
> > > correct that.
> > > 
> > > Thanks all for contributions. I for one found it a very useful call!
> > > 
> > > Jonathan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Linaro-open-discussions mailing list
> > > https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/LOD/Linaro+Open+Discussions+Home
> > > https://op-lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-open-discussions  
> 


More information about the Linaro-open-discussions mailing list