Skip to content

Revert arm64 cache geometry

Sudeep Holla linux-arm-kernel 1 version New

Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]

Versions newest first

  1. v1 Latest0 of 3 patches 0 repliesNew

Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet

None of the 3 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.

Reviews trailers per patch

No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.

Read the v1 thread

Cover letter [PATCH 0/3] Revert arm64 cache geometry
Quoted 13 lines · Catalin Marinas
Quoted 12 lines · Sudeep Holla
Quoted 6 lines · Catalin Marinas

BTW, it looks like I don't get any cache information on Juno with 4.3-rc7, it says "Unable to detect cache hierarchy from DT for CPU 0". I thought the point of the patch you are trying to revert was to parse this information from the hardware registers. Sudeep, any idea?

Yes you need to have updated DT from the mainline. Since the architecture doesn't provide any way of detecting the cpus sharing particular cache, we get that information from DT.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines

If DT lacks that info we don't expose any information. It would be wrong to say that a shared cache is shared by all the cpus in the system. DT check was added explicitly to avoid that.

OK, thanks for the information. The good thing is that use space should already be able to cope with cache information not present in sysfs.

True.

Quoted 5 lines

So, rather than reverting this feature, for the Denver case we have the option of either providing full cache topology information in DT or providing a DT flag which states whether hardware cache ID information is relevant.

Yes at-least few L2 cache controllers where either hardware can't provide that information or provides incorrect one, already use/override values from DT.

We can probably patch core cacheinfo itself as PPC also completely depends on DT(though not yet migrated to use generic cacheinfo). In that way we can avoid calling arch code if all the information is found in DT.

Quoted 3 lines

What about ACPI? Are there any provisions for specifying such information?

Not yet.

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Sudeep