diff mbox series

[v4,2/5] arm64, numa: Change the numa init functions name to be generic

Message ID 20201006001752.248564-3-atish.patra@wdc.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Unify NUMA implementation between ARM64 & RISC-V | expand

Commit Message

Atish Patra Oct. 6, 2020, 12:17 a.m. UTC 
As we are using generic numa implementation code, modify the acpi & numa
init functions name to indicate that generic implementation.

Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Tested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 13 -------------
 arch/arm64/mm/init.c          |  4 ++--
 drivers/base/arch_numa.c      | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 include/asm-generic/numa.h    |  4 ++--
 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

Comments

Catalin Marinas Nov. 6, 2020, 5:14 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> @@ -117,16 +117,3 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
>  
>  	node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
>  }
> -
> -int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
> -{
> -	int ret;
> -
> -	ret = acpi_numa_init();
> -	if (ret) {
> -		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> -
> -	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> -}

I think it's better if arm64_acpi_numa_init() and arm64_numa_init()
remained in the arm64 code. It's not really much code to be shared.

> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> index 73f8b49d485c..74b4f2ddad70 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/of.h>
>  
> -#include <asm/acpi.h>
>  #include <asm/sections.h>
>  
>  struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly;
> @@ -444,16 +443,37 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> +static int __init arch_acpi_numa_init(void)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = acpi_numa_init();
> +	if (ret) {
> +		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> +}
> +#else
> +static int __init arch_acpi_numa_init(void)
> +{
> +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +}
> +
> +#endif
> +
>  /**
> - * arm64_numa_init() - Initialize NUMA
> + * arch_numa_init() - Initialize NUMA
>   *
>   * Try each configured NUMA initialization method until one succeeds. The
> - * last fallback is dummy single node config encomapssing whole memory.
> + * last fallback is dummy single node config encompassing whole memory.
>   */
> -void __init arm64_numa_init(void)
> +void __init arch_numa_init(void)
>  {
>  	if (!numa_off) {
> -		if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arm64_acpi_numa_init))
> +		if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arch_acpi_numa_init))
>  			return;
>  		if (acpi_disabled && !numa_init(of_numa_init))
>  			return;

Does riscv even have an acpi_disabled variable?
Atish Patra Nov. 6, 2020, 5:33 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > @@ -117,16 +117,3 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> >
> >       node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
> >  }
> > -
> > -int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
> > -{
> > -     int ret;
> > -
> > -     ret = acpi_numa_init();
> > -     if (ret) {
> > -             pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> > -             return ret;
> > -     }
> > -
> > -     return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> > -}
>
> I think it's better if arm64_acpi_numa_init() and arm64_numa_init()
> remained in the arm64 code. It's not really much code to be shared.
>

RISC-V will probably support ACPI one day. The idea is to not to do
exercise again in future.
Moreover, there will be arch_numa_init which will be used by RISC-V
and there will be arm64_numa_init
used by arm64. However, if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to
move back those two functions to arm64.

In case, we decide to go that route, can we define arm64_numa_init in
mm/init.c ?
Defining numa.c just for arm64_numa_init in arm64 may be an overkill.

> > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> > index 73f8b49d485c..74b4f2ddad70 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
> > @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/of.h>
> >
> > -#include <asm/acpi.h>
> >  #include <asm/sections.h>
> >
> >  struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly;
> > @@ -444,16 +443,37 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> >       return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> > +static int __init arch_acpi_numa_init(void)
> > +{
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     ret = acpi_numa_init();
> > +     if (ret) {
> > +             pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> > +             return ret;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static int __init arch_acpi_numa_init(void)
> > +{
> > +     return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /**
> > - * arm64_numa_init() - Initialize NUMA
> > + * arch_numa_init() - Initialize NUMA
> >   *
> >   * Try each configured NUMA initialization method until one succeeds. The
> > - * last fallback is dummy single node config encomapssing whole memory.
> > + * last fallback is dummy single node config encompassing whole memory.
> >   */
> > -void __init arm64_numa_init(void)
> > +void __init arch_numa_init(void)
> >  {
> >       if (!numa_off) {
> > -             if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arm64_acpi_numa_init))
> > +             if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arch_acpi_numa_init))
> >                       return;
> >               if (acpi_disabled && !numa_init(of_numa_init))
> >                       return;
>
> Does riscv even have an acpi_disabled variable?
>
It is defined in "include/linux/acpi.h" which is included in arch_numa.c

> --
> Catalin
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
Catalin Marinas Nov. 6, 2020, 7:08 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:33:14AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > @@ -117,16 +117,3 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> > >
> > >       node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
> > >  }
> > > -
> > > -int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
> > > -{
> > > -     int ret;
> > > -
> > > -     ret = acpi_numa_init();
> > > -     if (ret) {
> > > -             pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> > > -             return ret;
> > > -     }
> > > -
> > > -     return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> > > -}
> >
> > I think it's better if arm64_acpi_numa_init() and arm64_numa_init()
> > remained in the arm64 code. It's not really much code to be shared.
> 
> RISC-V will probably support ACPI one day. The idea is to not to do
> exercise again in future.
> Moreover, there will be arch_numa_init which will be used by RISC-V
> and there will be arm64_numa_init
> used by arm64. However, if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to
> move back those two functions to arm64.

I don't have a strong view on this, only if there's a risk at some point
of the implementations diverging (e.g. quirks). We can revisit it if
that happens.

It may be worth swapping patches 1 and 2 so that you don't have an
arm64_* function in the core code after the first patch (more of a
nitpick). Either way, feel free to add my ack on both patches:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Atish Patra Nov. 7, 2020, 12:53 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:08 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:33:14AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > > index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > > @@ -117,16 +117,3 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> > > >
> > > >       node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
> > > >  }
> > > > -
> > > > -int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
> > > > -{
> > > > -     int ret;
> > > > -
> > > > -     ret = acpi_numa_init();
> > > > -     if (ret) {
> > > > -             pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> > > > -             return ret;
> > > > -     }
> > > > -
> > > > -     return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> > > > -}
> > >
> > > I think it's better if arm64_acpi_numa_init() and arm64_numa_init()
> > > remained in the arm64 code. It's not really much code to be shared.
> >
> > RISC-V will probably support ACPI one day. The idea is to not to do
> > exercise again in future.
> > Moreover, there will be arch_numa_init which will be used by RISC-V
> > and there will be arm64_numa_init
> > used by arm64. However, if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to
> > move back those two functions to arm64.
>
> I don't have a strong view on this, only if there's a risk at some point
> of the implementations diverging (e.g. quirks). We can revisit it if
> that happens.
>

Sure. I seriously hope we don't have to deal with arch specific quirks
in future.

> It may be worth swapping patches 1 and 2 so that you don't have an
> arm64_* function in the core code after the first patch (more of a
> nitpick). Either way, feel free to add my ack on both patches:
>

Sure. I will swap 1 & 2 and resend the series.

> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

Thanks.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
@@ -117,16 +117,3 @@  void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
 
 	node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
 }
-
-int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
-{
-	int ret;
-
-	ret = acpi_numa_init();
-	if (ret) {
-		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
-		return ret;
-	}
-
-	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
-}
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
index 481d22c32a2e..93b660229e1d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
@@ -418,10 +418,10 @@  void __init bootmem_init(void)
 	max_pfn = max_low_pfn = max;
 	min_low_pfn = min;
 
-	arm64_numa_init();
+	arch_numa_init();
 
 	/*
-	 * must be done after arm64_numa_init() which calls numa_init() to
+	 * must be done after arch_numa_init() which calls numa_init() to
 	 * initialize node_online_map that gets used in hugetlb_cma_reserve()
 	 * while allocating required CMA size across online nodes.
 	 */
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
index 73f8b49d485c..74b4f2ddad70 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_numa.c
@@ -13,7 +13,6 @@ 
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
 
-#include <asm/acpi.h>
 #include <asm/sections.h>
 
 struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly;
@@ -444,16 +443,37 @@  static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
+static int __init arch_acpi_numa_init(void)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = acpi_numa_init();
+	if (ret) {
+		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
+}
+#else
+static int __init arch_acpi_numa_init(void)
+{
+	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
+
+#endif
+
 /**
- * arm64_numa_init() - Initialize NUMA
+ * arch_numa_init() - Initialize NUMA
  *
  * Try each configured NUMA initialization method until one succeeds. The
- * last fallback is dummy single node config encomapssing whole memory.
+ * last fallback is dummy single node config encompassing whole memory.
  */
-void __init arm64_numa_init(void)
+void __init arch_numa_init(void)
 {
 	if (!numa_off) {
-		if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arm64_acpi_numa_init))
+		if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arch_acpi_numa_init))
 			return;
 		if (acpi_disabled && !numa_init(of_numa_init))
 			return;
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/numa.h b/include/asm-generic/numa.h
index 2718d5a6ff03..e7962db4ba44 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/numa.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/numa.h
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@  static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
 }
 #endif
 
-void __init arm64_numa_init(void);
+void __init arch_numa_init(void);
 int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end);
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance);
 void __init numa_free_distance(void);
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@  void numa_remove_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
 static inline void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu) { }
 static inline void numa_add_cpu(unsigned int cpu) { }
 static inline void numa_remove_cpu(unsigned int cpu) { }
-static inline void arm64_numa_init(void) { }
+static inline void arch_numa_init(void) { }
 static inline void early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid) { }
 
 #endif	/* CONFIG_NUMA */