On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:14:22PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Robin Murphy [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Rob,

On 2021-12-16 23:31, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

Use the minimum CPU h/w id of the CPUs associated with the cache for the
cache 'id'. This will provide a stable id value for a given system. As

I am trying to follow the code. IIUC, the level one(I$ and D$) are skipped
in this logic and the private unified cache if any will get the cpu hwid as
the cache id which is all fine. But what happens if there are 2 levels of
unified private cache ? I am assuming we only care about shared caches for
MPAM and ignore private caches which sounds OK but I just wanted to confirm.

quoted

quoted

we need to check all possible CPUs, we can't use the shared_cpu_map
which is just online CPUs. There's not a cache to CPUs mapping in DT, so
we have to walk all CPU nodes and then walk cache levels.

I would have preferred to add the cache IDs in DT similar to ACPI but I see
you have certain concerns with that which are valid as well.

quoted

I believe another expected use of the cache ID exposed in sysfs is to
program steering tags for cache stashing (typically in VFIO-based
userspace drivers like DPDK so we can't realistically mediate it any
other way). There were plans afoot last year to ensure that ACPI PPTT
could provide the necessary ID values for arm64 systems which will
typically be fairly arbitrary (but unique) due to reflecting underlying
interconnect routing IDs. Assuming that there will eventually be some
interest in cache stashing on DT-based systems too, we probably want to
allow for an explicit ID property on DT cache nodes in a similar manner.

If you have a suggestion for ID values that correspond to the h/w,
then we can add them. I'd like a bit more than just trusting that ID
is something real.

I agree, probably architecture must do better job at defining these. But
generated IDs IMO might cause issues especial if we have to change the
logic without breaking the backward compatibility.

While the ACPI folks may be willing to take an arbitrary index, it's
something we (mostly) avoid for DT.

Not sure if we can call that *arbitrary* 😄, in that case we can imagine
the same at several places in the firmware.

quoted

That said, I think it does make sense to have some kind of
auto-generated fallback scheme *as well*, since I'm sure there will be
plenty systems which care about MPAM but don't support stashing, and
therefore wouldn't have a meaningful set of IDs to populate their DT
with. Conversely I think that might also matter for ACPI too - one point
I remember from previous discussions is that PPTT may use a compact
representation where a single entry represents all equivalent caches at
that level, so I'm not sure we can necessarily rely on IDs out of that
path being unique either.

AIUI, cache ids break the compact representation.

IIRC, a note was added to avoid compaction if an implementation requires
any cache instance to be referenced uniquely.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep