lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/nodes: Ensure enough nodes avail for operations
From
Date
See below.

On 10/16/2017 07:33 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> powerpc/nodes: On systems like PowerPC which allow 'hot-add' of CPU
>
> This is a powerpc-only patch, so saying "systems like PowerPC" is
> confusing. What you should be saying is "On pseries systems".
>
>> or memory resources, it may occur that the new resources are to be
>> inserted into nodes that were not used for these resources at bootup.
>> In the kernel, any node that is used must be defined and initialized
>> at boot.
>>
>> This patch extracts the value of the lowest domain level (number of
>> allocable resources) from the "rtas" device tree property
>> "ibm,current-associativity-domains" or the device tree property
>
> What is current associativity domains? I've not heard of it, where is it
> documented, and what does it mean.
>
> Why would use the "current" set vs the "max"? I thought the whole point
> was to discover the maximum possible set of nodes that could be
> hotplugged.
>
>> "ibm,max-associativity-domains" to use as the maximum number of nodes
>> to setup as possibly available in the system. This new setting will
>> override the instruction,
>>
>> nodes_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);
>>
>> presently seen in the function arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c:initmem_init().
>>
>> If the property is not present at boot, no operation will be performed
>> to define or enable additional nodes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> index ec098b3..b385cd0 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -892,6 +892,51 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
>> NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages = spanned_pages;
>> }
>>
>> +static void __init node_associativity_setup(void)
>
> This should really be called "find_possible_nodes()" or something more
> descriptive.

Okay.
>
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *rtas;
>> +
>> + rtas = of_find_node_by_path("/rtas");
>> + if (rtas) {
>
> If you just short-circuit that return the whole function body can be
> deintented, making it significantly more readable.
>
> ie:
> + rtas = of_find_node_by_path("/rtas");
> + if (!rtas)
> + return;

Okay.

>
>> + const __be32 *prop;
>> + u32 len, entries, numnodes, i;
>> +
>> + prop = of_get_property(rtas,
>> + "ibm,current-associativity-domains", &len);
>
> Please don't use of_get_property() in new code, we have much better
> accessors these days, which do better error checking and handle the
> endian conversions for you.
>
> In this case you'd use eg:
>
> u32 entries;
> rc = of_property_read_u32(rtas, "ibm,current-associativity-domains", &entries);

The property 'ibm,current-associativity-domains' has the same format as the property
'ibm,max-associativity-domains' i.e. it is an integer array. The accessor of_property_read_32,
however, expects it to be an integer singleton value. Instead, it needs:

>
>> + if (!prop || len < sizeof(unsigned int)) {
>> + prop = of_get_property(rtas,
>> + "ibm,max-associativity-domains", &len);
if (!prop || len < sizeof(unsigned int))
>> + goto endit;
>> + }
>> +
>> + entries = of_read_number(prop++, 1);
>> +
>> + if (len < (entries * sizeof(unsigned int)))
>> + goto endit;
>> +
>> + if ((0 <= min_common_depth) && (min_common_depth <= (entries-1)))
>> + entries = min_common_depth;
>> + else
>> + entries -= 1;
> ^
> You can't just guess that will be the right entry.
>
> If min_common_depth is < 0 the function should have just returned
> immediately at the top.

Okay.

>
> If min_common_depth is outside the range of the property that's a buggy
> device tree, you should print a warning and return.
>
>> + numnodes = of_read_number(&prop[entries], 1);
>
> u32 num_nodes;
> rc = of_property_read_u32_index(rtas, "ibm,current-associativity-domains", min_common_depth, &num_nodes);
>> +
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "numa: Nodes = %d (mcd = %d)\n", numnodes,
>> + min_common_depth);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < numnodes; i++) {
>> + if (!node_possible(i)) {
>> + setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>
> Do we actually need to setup the NODE_DATA() yet? Doing it now ensures
> it will not be allocated node local, which sucks.

Okay.

>
>> + node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> +endit:
>
> "out" would be the normal name.

Okay.

>
>> + if (rtas)
>> + of_node_put(rtas);
>> +}
>> +
>> void __init initmem_init(void)
>> {
>> int nid, cpu;
>> @@ -911,6 +956,8 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
>> */
>
> You need to update the comment above here which is contradicted by the
> new function you're adding.

Okay.

>
>> nodes_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);
>>
>> + node_associativity_setup();
>> +
>> for_each_online_node(nid) {
>> unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
>>
>
> cheers
>
>

--
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line 363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell: (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-17 18:15    [W:0.049 / U:16.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site