Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support

From	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support
Date	2016-04-27 13:00 +0200
Message-ID	<rsvmi-8dS-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <rrMSe-4Wa-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rrNuV-5F5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rrOAH-6uE-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <rs9Yu-7Ev-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rsbGY-j1-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 02:53:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

[...]

> > 
> > That sounds like a good compromise.
> > 
> > So I could do the following:
> > 
> > 1) In the uncore setup check for CONFIG_NUMA, if set use the NUMA
> >    information to determine the device node
> > 
> > 2) If CONFIG_NUMA is not set we check if we run on a socketed system
> > 
> >    a) In that case we return an error and give a message that CONFIG_NUMA needs
> >       to be enabled
> >    b) Otherwise we have a single node system and use node_id = 0
> 
> That sounds sensible to me. How do you "check if we run on a socketed
> system"? My assumption would be that you could figure this out from the
> firmware tables?

There are probably multiple ways to detect a socketed system, with some quite
hardware specific. I would like to avoid parsing DT (and ACPI) though,
if possible.

A generic approach would be to do a query of the multiprocessor affinity
register (MPIDR_EL1) on all CPUs. The AFF2 part (bits 23:16) contains the 
socket number on ThunderX. If this is non-zero on any CPU I would assume a
socketed system.

Would that be feasible?

thanks,
Jan

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-04-25 13:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> - 2016-04-25 14:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-04-25 15:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> - 2016-04-26 14:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-04-26 16:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com> - 2016-04-27 13:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-27 13:20 +0200

csiph-web