| Message ID | 20220920091218.1208658-2-wei.chen@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Device tree based NUMA support for Arm - Part#2 | expand |
On 20.09.2022 11:12, Wei Chen wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/numa.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/numa.c > @@ -50,9 +50,28 @@ nodemask_t __read_mostly node_online_map = { { [0] = 1UL } }; > bool numa_off; > s8 acpi_numa = 0; > > -int srat_disabled(void) > +int __init arch_numa_setup(const char *opt) > { > - return numa_off || acpi_numa < 0; > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA > + if ( !strncmp(opt, "noacpi", 6) ) > + { > + numa_off = false; > + acpi_numa = -1; When making the v5 changes, did you go over the results to check they are actually consistent? I'm afraid they still aren't, because of the line above: Here we disable NUMA, but that doesn't mean there's broken firmware. Therefore I guess I need to ask for another round of renaming of the two helper functions; I'm sorry for that. What you introduce ... > + return 0; > + } > +#endif > + > + return -EINVAL; > +} > + > +bool arch_numa_broken(void) > +{ > + return acpi_numa < 0; > +} ... here wants to be arch_numa_disabled(), whereas the function currently named this way (in patch 5) wants to be e.g. arch_numa_unavailable() (or, using inverted sense, arch_numa_available()). Of course I'll be happy to see other naming suggestions for both functions, as long as they reflect the respective purposes. Alternatively, to retain the current naming, the assignments to acpi_numa would need revising. But I think that would be the more fragile approach. Jan
Hi Jan, On 2022/9/27 15:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.09.2022 11:12, Wei Chen wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/numa.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/numa.c >> @@ -50,9 +50,28 @@ nodemask_t __read_mostly node_online_map = { { [0] = 1UL } }; >> bool numa_off; >> s8 acpi_numa = 0; >> >> -int srat_disabled(void) >> +int __init arch_numa_setup(const char *opt) >> { >> - return numa_off || acpi_numa < 0; >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA >> + if ( !strncmp(opt, "noacpi", 6) ) >> + { >> + numa_off = false; >> + acpi_numa = -1; > > When making the v5 changes, did you go over the results to check they are > actually consistent? I'm afraid they still aren't, because of the line > above: Here we disable NUMA, but that doesn't mean there's broken firmware. Yes, you're right. I had not realized it while I was modifying this patch. > Therefore I guess I need to ask for another round of renaming of the two > helper functions; I'm sorry for that. What you introduce ... > >> + return 0; >> + } >> +#endif >> + >> + return -EINVAL; >> +} >> + >> +bool arch_numa_broken(void) >> +{ >> + return acpi_numa < 0; >> +} > > ... here wants to be arch_numa_disabled(), whereas the function currently > named this way (in patch 5) wants to be e.g. arch_numa_unavailable() (or, > using inverted sense, arch_numa_available()). Of course I'll be happy to > see other naming suggestions for both functions, as long as they reflect > the respective purposes. > > Alternatively, to retain the current naming, the assignments to acpi_numa > would need revising. But I think that would be the more fragile approach. > Yes, I agree with you, I will rename these two functions. Your suggested names are reasonable, I will use them in next version. Cheers, Wei Chen > Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h index c32ccffde3..529efadf93 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h @@ -32,8 +32,9 @@ extern void numa_add_cpu(int cpu); extern void numa_init_array(void); extern bool numa_off; - -extern int srat_disabled(void); +extern int arch_numa_setup(const char *opt); +extern bool arch_numa_broken(void); +extern bool srat_disabled(void); extern void numa_set_node(int cpu, nodeid_t node); extern nodeid_t setup_node(unsigned int pxm); extern void srat_detect_node(int cpu); diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/numa.c b/xen/arch/x86/numa.c index 627ae8aa95..1ab37b9c19 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/numa.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/numa.c @@ -50,9 +50,28 @@ nodemask_t __read_mostly node_online_map = { { [0] = 1UL } }; bool numa_off; s8 acpi_numa = 0; -int srat_disabled(void) +int __init arch_numa_setup(const char *opt) { - return numa_off || acpi_numa < 0; +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA + if ( !strncmp(opt, "noacpi", 6) ) + { + numa_off = false; + acpi_numa = -1; + return 0; + } +#endif + + return -EINVAL; +} + +bool arch_numa_broken(void) +{ + return acpi_numa < 0; +} + +bool srat_disabled(void) +{ + return numa_off || arch_numa_broken(); } /* @@ -291,28 +310,21 @@ void numa_set_node(int cpu, nodeid_t node) /* [numa=off] */ static int __init cf_check numa_setup(const char *opt) { - if ( !strncmp(opt,"off",3) ) + if ( !strncmp(opt, "off", 3) ) numa_off = true; - else if ( !strncmp(opt,"on",2) ) + else if ( !strncmp(opt, "on", 2) ) numa_off = false; #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU else if ( !strncmp(opt, "fake=", 5) ) { numa_off = false; - numa_fake = simple_strtoul(opt+5,NULL,0); + numa_fake = simple_strtoul(opt + 5, NULL, 0); if ( numa_fake >= MAX_NUMNODES ) numa_fake = MAX_NUMNODES; } -#endif -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA - else if ( !strncmp(opt,"noacpi",6) ) - { - numa_off = false; - acpi_numa = -1; - } #endif else - return -EINVAL; + return arch_numa_setup(opt); return 0; }
acpi_numa is a specific NUMA switch for ACPI NUMA implementation. Other NUMA implementation may not need this switch. But this switch is not only used by ACPI code, it is also used directly in some general NUMA logic code. So far this hasn't caused any problem because Xen only has x86 implementing ACPI NUMA, but now Arm is implementing device tree based NUMA. Accesssing acpi_numa directly in some functions will be a block of reusing NUMA common code. It is also difficult for us to replace it with a new generic switch, because it is hard to prove that the new switch states can guarantee the original code will work correctly. So in this patch, we provide two helpers for common code to update and get states of acpi_numa. And other new NUMA implementations just need to provide the same helpers for common code. In this case, the generic NUMA logic code can be reused by all NUMA implementations. Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@arm.com> --- v4 -> v5: 1. Use arch_numa_broken instead of arch_numa_disabled for acpi_numa < 0 check. Because arch_numa_disabled might include acpi_numa < 0 (init failed) and acpi_numa == 0 (no data or data no init) cases. v3 -> v4: 1. Drop parameter from arch_numa_disabled, the parameter will be introduced in later patch where use it. 2. Drop unnecessary "else" from arch_numa_setup, and fix its indentation. v2 -> v3: 1. Drop enumeration of numa status. 2. Use helpers to get/update acpi_numa. 3. Insert spaces among parameters of strncmp in numa_setup. v1 -> v2: 1. Remove fw_numa. 2. Use enumeration to replace numa_off and acpi_numa. 3. Correct return value of srat_disabled. 4. Introduce numa_enabled_with_firmware. --- xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h | 5 +++-- xen/arch/x86/numa.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)