[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] config: change default cache line size for ARMv8 with meson

[Honnappa Nagarahalli]

> > >>>>>> On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 10:22 +0000, Yongseok Koh wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:09 AM, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I think, I way forward is to add
> > >>>>>>>> config/arm/arm64_a72_linuxapp_gcc for meson. This config can
> > >>>>>>>> be used for all SoC with A72
> > >>>>>>>> armv8
> > >>>>>>>> implementation and may have sym link to specfific SoC to
> > >>>>>>>> avoid confusion to end users.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Is config/arm/arm64_a72_linuxapp_gcc valid? Others have
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes. For cross compiling for A72.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Any cross-compilation with meson requires a config file.
> > >>>>> The default Arm cross-compilation is done with
> > >>>>> 	config/arm/arm64_armv8_linuxapp_gcc
> > >>>>> which set implementor_id = 'generic'
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> For native compilation, implementor_id is detected from
> > >>>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/regs/identification/midr_el1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So each Arm machine needs 2 things:
> > >>>>> 	- a cross-compilation file
> > >>>>> 	- settings based on implementor_id in
> config/arm/meson.build
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes. config/arm/arm64_armv8_linuxapp_gcc sets the implementor_id
> > >>>> = 'generic' which assumed to generic across all the armv8 platform.
> > >>>> If tomorrow there is new core from ARM which A100 with armv8.2
> > >>>> specific we can not tune the generic params armv8.2 as it will
> > >>>> break other CPU.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Having not seperate IMPLEMENTOR ID is a chip design issue.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> No I don't think it's a design issue.
> > >>>>> If the Arm core has no modification, it does not need to be
> > >>>>> specially identified.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thats right. It does not need to be specially identified, then
> > >>>> should have default config is enough.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> I think it can work around by creating
> > >>>>>> config/arm/arm64_<your_soc_name>_linuxapp_gcc
> > >>>>>> and build on x86 or arm64 through
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> meson build --cross-file
> > >>>>>> config/arm/arm64_<your_soc_name>_linuxapp_gcc
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> No, it is a real A72, so it should work with default settings.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The only issue we have is that the default cache line size for
> > >>>>> Aarch64
> > >>>>> is set to 128 in config/arm/meson.build, and this is wrong.
> > >>>>> The default cache line is 64 bits.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The cache line size as per ARM spec it is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED.
> > >>>
> > >>> In A72 spec, it is said
> > >>> "Returns 0b010 to indicate that the cache line size is 64 bytes."
> > >>> But I guess we cannot say it is always true for all models.
> > >>> So let's assume there is no default.
> > >>
> > >> Please note, A72 is not armv8 spec. A72 is just an IMPLEMENTATION
> > >> of armv8.
> > >
> > > Yes, this my understanding. That's why I agree with you.
> > >
> > >>>> So no default there. So the default is something work on all
> > >>>> platforms.
> > >>>> Actually Cavium has machine with 64B and 128B CL and same image
> > >>>> should work on both for generic build.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> This is already overriden for Cavium machines which have 128-bit
> > >>>>> cache lines.
> > >>>>> It may be needed to do the same change for other machines
> > >>>>> (Qualcomm?)
> > >>>>> having Arm core modified to 128-bit cache lines.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Assume you meant 128B here.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, sorry I mixed bits and bytes :)
> > >>>
> > >>>> Building the image Naively(on 128B CL
> > >>>> machine) and cross compile (on x86) is not an issue.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> The other concern is about running a generic Arm build.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes. That's the ONLY concern.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Given 64-bit should be the default, generic builds will have
> > >>>>> this value.
> > >>>>> Is it a big issue for running generic 64-bit build on Cavium
> > >>>>> machines?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cavium has both 64B and 128B CL machines. So putting generic
> > >>>> form,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You can run 128B configured image on 64B machine, It will waste
> > >>>> some memory not beyond that. Other way around will result in HW
> > >>>> misbehavior.
> > >>>> ie Running 64B CL image on 128B target.
> > >>>
> > >>> Indeed it is the main concern.
> > >>> Running DPDK tuned for 128 bytes on a core having 64 bytes cache
> > >>> line will result in lower performances. It is less an issue than
> > >>> HW misbehavior.
> > >>
> > >> Do you see performance issue or it more memory usage? It nothing do
> > >> with thread just of out curosity. Becase, our 64CL machine does
> > >> take more memory, performance seems to same for both. Note we are
> > >> using 512MB hugepage size.
> > >
> > > Yes, we see better performance with 64B cache line on Bluefield.
> > >
> > >>> If we agree to keep 128 bytes as generic cache line size for Arm,
> > >>> we need a way to get 64 bytes size for unmodified cores.
> > >>> In other words, the generic build settings must be different of
> > >>> the default settings.
> > >>
> > >> Please send a patch.
> > >>
> > >> If MIDR value is set to A72, we can set to 64B cache, no issue.
> > >>
> > >>> Please make a difference between default 'armv8' and 'generic'
> > >>> as implementor_id in config/arm/meson.build.
> > >>> I propose arm64_armv8_linuxapp_gcc being the default config (for
> > >>> armv8)
> > >>> and creating arm64_generic_linuxapp_gcc for the generic build (for
> > >>> distros).
> > >>
> > >> It should be inline with how distro guys build the image. I guess
> > >> we dont want DPDK to be a exception.
> > >
> > > The machine option is specific to DPDK, so we can define it as we want.
> > >
> > >> Please check below thread and patch.
> > >>
> > >>
> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmai
> > >> ls.dpdk.org%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2019-
> > January%2F122676.html&data=02
> > >> %7C01%7Cyskoh%40mellanox.com%7C96576e66c4b6434b47ad08d6764
> 2
> > be9a%7Ca65
> > >>
> >
> 2971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636826426371146146&a
> > mp;sdata=
> > >>
> >
> MNMzpjs7e71l4vZAmoyqicpElp7UIFO48UuamggQWHQ%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpa
> > >>
> >
> tches.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F49477%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cyskoh%40m
> > ellanox
> > >> .com%7C96576e66c4b6434b47ad08d67642be9a%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9
> ba
> > 6a4d149256
> > >>
> >
> f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636826426371146146&sdata=okIrz7Idc8t7nMbFkc
> > RnjxZg
> > >> 2wMn9ZTjqaTLlEXCnaU%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >> Debian folks are building like this for the _generic_ image.
> > >> What ever works for every distros, I am fine with that.
> > >>
> > >> meson configure -Dmachine=default
> > >> meson build
> > >> cd build
> > >> ninja
> > >> ninja install
> > >
> > > I think we agree on the idea of having different configs for
> > > unmodified A72 core and generic build working for all.
> > > The remaining bits to discuss are:
> > > 	- do we want to use the armv8 config for unmodified A72?
> > > 	- what should be the name of the generic config?
> > >
> > > When digging more the config files in meson, I found this:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmeso
> > > nbuild.com%2FCross-compilation.html%23cross-file-
> > locations&data=02
> > > %7C01%7Cyskoh%40mellanox.com%7C96576e66c4b6434b47ad08d6764
> 2b
> > e9a%7Ca652
> > >
> >
> 971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636826426371146146&am
> > p;sdata=J8
> > > XiCovgwqxm8HHRCJ5bSUbx4yTHCO2YuZz2ryZJx8I%3D&reserved=0
> > > It says that distros or compilers should provide some config files.
> > > It means we should check if some standard names are emerging and try
> > > to follow the same naming, or even re-use existing config files.
> >
> > I'll come up with a new patch based on the discussion here.
> > A few things noted,
> > - we still want it to be 128B for generic build
> > - we at least agreed on changing it to 64B for A72
> How will this be done? Will you add
> config/arm/arm64_bluefield_linuxapp_gcc?
I asked this question as there was a proposal containing 'a72' in the file name. IMO, the file name should contain 'bluefield', not on a72.

> 
> > - As Qualcomm Centriq CPU has 128B cache line with A72, they should
> >   create a profile in meson.build based on their impl_id.
> Qualcomm is not A72 core. Can it not use RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE from
> 'flags_generic' in config/arm/meson.build?
> 
> >
> > I talked to Thomas and we'll shoot it for 19.05.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yongseok