[RFC] reorganize cputypes for PPC64

[Marvin]

Hi,

On Saturday 12 July 2008 20:00:05 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2008, Marvin wrote:
> > attached patch introduces a "processor type" menu similar to ppc32. It
> > _should_ not change anything upto now.
> >
> > The aim is to allow future fine graded cpu optimizations via mcpu/mtune
> > compiler flags and also to clean up the arch Makefile/Kconfig.cputypes (I
> > know this is a minefield).
>
> I tried something similar last year, but failed miserably, because the
> complexity cannot really be contained. I still think it's a good idea,
> but I'm not sure whether your patch will help at all.

before I try to change something, I like to get some feedback about the 
direction to take. Therefore your comments are more than welcome.

> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
> > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype index f7efaa9..eebde6c 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
> > @@ -54,35 +54,65 @@ config E200
> >
> >  endchoice
> >
> > -config POWER4_ONLY
> > -       bool "Optimize for POWER4"
> > +choice
> > +       prompt "Processor Type"
> >         depends on PPC64
> > +       default TUNE_POWER4
> > +       help
> > +         There are serveral families of 64 bit PowerPC chips supported.
> > +         These include the Power3 to Power6 series, 970, and Cell BE
> > based +         CPUs made be IBM.
> > +
> > +         If unsure, select Power4.
> > +
> > +config TUNE_POWER3
> > +       bool "Power3"
> > +
> > +config TUNE_POWER4
> > +       bool "Power4"
> > +
> > +config TUNE_970
> > +       bool "970/G5"
> > +
> > +config TUNE_POWER5
> > +       bool "Power5"
> > +
> > +config TUNE_POWER6
> > +       bool "Power6"
> > +
> > +config TUNE_CELL
> > +       bool "Cell Broadband Engine"
> > +       help
> > +         Cause the compiler to optimize for the PPE of the Cell
> > Broadband +         Engine. This will make the code run considerably
> > faster on Cell +         but somewhat slower on other machines. If the
> > resulting kernel is +         built to run only on Cell BE machines,
> > select also OPT_EXCLUSIVE. +
> > +endchoice
>
> What about the other CPUs? There is also RS64, Power5+, PA6T and Power7.

I grepped the source (especially the defconfigs) and it seems, that there is 
only one distinction between the different PPC64 archs named POWER3. POWER4 
is always set on PPC64 archs, POWER3 is not set on G5, maple and pasemi. 

Grepping further reveals, that POWER3 is mentioned in mm/pgtable_32.c only, 
where is used to define HAVE_BATS (it exists also in asm/cputable.h, which is 
a candidate for cleanup -> replace !POWER4 && !POWER3 by !PPC64).

My daring conclusion is therefore:
	1. POWER3 could be replaced by HAVE_BATS
	2. POWER4 could be replaced by PPC64

The only processor dependant config left is the tuning option. gcc has no 
special option for power7 or pa6t yet, but the reorg should be flexible, so 
new tuning options can be added easily. RS64 could be added to the tuneing 
options. 

> > +
> > +config OPT_EXCLUSIVE
> > +       bool "Optimize to run exclusive on selected CPU"
> >         default n
> > -       ---help---
> > -         Cause the compiler to optimize for POWER4/POWER5/PPC970
> > processors. -         The resulting binary will not work on POWER3 or
> > RS64 processors -         when compiled with binutils 2.15 or later.
> > +       help
> > +         Cause the compiler to optimize to run exclusive on the selected
> > +         CPU. The resulting binary will probably not work on other CPUs.
> > +
> > +         If the compiler/binutils combination does not support the
> > exclusive +         optimization, it will try to tune only or fail.
> > +
> > +         If you are unsure, select no.
>
> Almost all CPUs are backwards compatible, so the option should not
> be labelled 'exclusive'. In general, if you build for PowerX, it will
> also run on Power(X+1). 970 is backwards compatible to Power4, Cell
> and PA6T are backwards compatible to 970, Power6 is backwards compatible
> to both of these.
>
> Also, there are good reasons to have the -mcpu option different from
> -mtune. E.g. you may want to use Power4 compatible instructions but
> tune for Power6 in a typical distro kernel.

ok. That would mean to have two config menus:
	- optimize to run exclusive on cpu_x or higher
	- tune for cpu_y, and use instruction set for cpu_x, where x<=y

That seems to be rather complex and I think this is also unrealistic, because 
there are often only two cases:
	- a distro doesn't want to maintain one kernel per cpu. So they always choose 
common instructions and tune for some higher cpu (likely power4).
	- a high end user (or specilized distro), who wants to compile his own kernel 
for maximum performance compiles exlusive only (e.g. for cell be). 

This is why I choosed "select cpu" menu and a bool for exclusive (use mcpu) or 
not (use mtune). Another option would be to add a string prompt, so the user 
can enter his own tuning options "-mcpu=cpu_x -mtune=cpu_y", but I think this 
is undesired.

> >  config POWER3
> > -       bool
> >         depends on PPC64
> > -       default y if !POWER4_ONLY
> > +       def_bool y if !POWER4_ONLY
> >
> >  config POWER4
> >         depends on PPC64
> >         def_bool y
> >
> > -config TUNE_CELL
> > -       bool "Optimize for Cell Broadband Engine"
> > +config POWER4_ONLY
> >         depends on PPC64
> > -       help
> > -         Cause the compiler to optimize for the PPE of the Cell
> > Broadband -         Engine. This will make the code run considerably
> > faster on Cell -         but somewhat slower on other machines. This
> > option only changes -         the scheduling of instructions, not the
> > selection of instructions -         itself, so the resulting kernel will
> > keep running on all other -         machines. When building a kernel that
> > is supposed to run only -         on Cell, you should also select the
> > POWER4_ONLY option. +       def_bool y if TUNE_POWER4 && OPT_EXCLUSIVE
> >
> >  config 6xx
> >         bool
>
> Tuning for Cell gives a significant performance bonus on cell based
> machines with a new compiler, and again, you would typically want to use
> the Power4 instruction set, but not restrict to Power3 or use all of the
> Cell instructions.

That's again the "distro/high end user" question discussed above. I think this 
was raised several times in the past on this list without a common 
conclusion. A small survey shows, that distros are shipping kernels for ppc32 
(sometimes prep and chrp) and ppc64 (common, iseries, pseries, and ps3) for 
installation only and provide a single image for updates. Maybe this would 
change if there is a choice....

Thanks

Marvin