Hello Michael,
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:21:22PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Gautham R. Shenoy" <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
> > index 0af5c11..884dff2 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
> > @@ -436,8 +438,56 @@ static void __init cpu_init_thread_core_maps(int tpc)
> > printk(KERN_DEBUG " (thread shift is %d)\n", threads_shift);
> > }
> >
> > -
> > u32 *cpu_to_phys_id = NULL;
> > +/*
> > + * check_for_interleaved_big_core - Checks if the core represented by
> > + * dn is a big-core whose threads are interleavings of the
> > + * threads of the component small cores.
> > + *
> > + * @dn: device node corresponding to the core.
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if the core is a interleaved big-core.
> > + * Returns false otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool check_for_interleaved_big_core(struct device_node *dn)
> > +{
> > + int len, nr_groups, threads_per_group;
> > + const __be32 *thread_groups;
> > + __be32 *thread_list, *first_cpu_idx;
> > + int cur_cpu, next_cpu, i, j;
> > +
> > + thread_groups = of_get_property(dn, "ibm,thread-groups", &len);
> > + if (!thread_groups)
> > + return false;
>
> There are better device tree APIs than bare of_get_property() these
> days, can you try to use those?
Ok, I will use them.
>
> > + nr_groups = be32_to_cpu(*(thread_groups + 1));
> > + if (nr_groups <= 1)
> > + return false;
>
> eg. this would be of_property_read_u32_index()
>
Ok.
> > @@ -565,7 +615,16 @@ void __init smp_setup_cpu_maps(void)
> > vdso_data->processorCount = num_present_cpus();
> > #endif /* CONFIG_PPC64 */
> >
> > - /* Initialize CPU <=> thread mapping/
> > + dn = of_find_node_by_type(NULL, "cpu");
> > + if (dn) {
> > + if (check_for_interleaved_big_core(dn)) {
> > + has_interleaved_big_core = true;
> > + pr_info("Detected interleaved big-cores\n");
> > + }
> > + of_node_put(dn);
> > + }
>
> This is a bit untidy, given how unlikely it is that you would have no
> CPUs :)
This can actually go into the earlier loop where we initialize the
smp_processor_ids(). I have fixed it in the next iteration.
>
> You should be able to do the lookup of the property and the setting of
> has_interleaved_big_core all inside
> check_for_interleaved_big_core().
Yes, that's what I am doing in the next iteration.
>
> cheers
>
