Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Mar 2023 09:26:50 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] x86/platform/uv: UV support for sub-NUMA clustering | From | Dave Hansen <> |
| |
On 2/24/23 14:59, Steve Wahl wrote: > + if (np) { > + s = ((i * 64) + __ffs(np)) & s_mask; > + if (sock_min > s) > + sock_min = s; > + s = ((i * 64) + __fls(np)) & s_mask; > + if (sock_max < s) > + sock_max = s; > + } > } > } > if (UVH_NODE_PRESENT_0) { > np = uv_read_local_mmr(UVH_NODE_PRESENT_0); > pr_info("UV: NODE_PRESENT_0 = 0x%016lx\n", np); > - uv_pb += hweight64(np); > + if (np) { > + s = __ffs(np) & s_mask; > + if (sock_min > s) > + sock_min = s; > + s = __fls(np) & s_mask; > + if (sock_max < s) > + sock_max = s; > + } > } > if (UVH_NODE_PRESENT_1) { > np = uv_read_local_mmr(UVH_NODE_PRESENT_1); > pr_info("UV: NODE_PRESENT_1 = 0x%016lx\n", np); > - uv_pb += hweight64(np); > + if (np) { > + s = (64 + __ffs(np)) & s_mask; > + if (sock_min > s) > + sock_min = s; > + s = (64 + __fls(np)) & s_mask; > + if (sock_max < s) > + sock_max = s; > + } > + }
I guess this patch is modifying code that very few people care about. But, this is kinda a mess. This patch does a *TON* of different things and makes almost no effort to refactor the code before diving into the changes.
I quoted the above text because whatever that code is doing, it's gloriously uncommented. That kind of thing demands a helper even if it's just used once so that a read can have _some_ idea what it's doing logically.
Could you please take another pass at this? I think it demands to be broken up into at _least_ 5-10 individual patches.
For instance, you could introduce and use uv_pnode_to_socket() in one patch.
Or this:
> - nasid_mask = UVH_RH_GAM_MMIOH_OVERLAY_CONFIG0_BASE_MASK; > + nasid_mask = > + is_uv(UV4A) ? UV4AH_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG0_NASID_MASK : > + is_uv(UV4) ? UV4H_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG0_NASID_MASK : > + UV3H_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG0_NASID_MASK; > n = UVH_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG0_DEPTH; > min_nasid = min_pnode * 2; > max_nasid = max_pnode * 2; > @@ -1046,7 +1050,10 @@ static void __init calc_mmioh_map(enum mmioh_arch index, > break; > case UVX_MMIOH1: > mmr = UVH_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG1; > - nasid_mask = UVH_RH_GAM_MMIOH_OVERLAY_CONFIG1_BASE_MASK; > + nasid_mask = > + is_uv(UV4A) ? UV4AH_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG0_NASID_MASK : > + is_uv(UV4) ? UV4H_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG1_NASID_MASK : > + UV3H_RH_GAM_MMIOH_REDIRECT_CONFIG1_NASID_MASK;
That could use a helper to reduce the duplication and add clarity and be done in a separate patch.
| |