lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/5] acpi/hmat: Register special purpose memory as a device
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:56:22 -0700
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Jonathan Cameron
> <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 08:43:03 -0700
> > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:19 AM Jonathan Cameron
> > > <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:08:49 -0700
> > > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Memory that has been tagged EFI_SPECIAL_PURPOSE, and has performance
> > > > > properties described by the ACPI HMAT is expected to have an application
> > > > > specific consumer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those consumers may want 100% of the memory capacity to be reserved from
> > > > > any usage by the kernel. By default, with this enabling, a platform
> > > > > device is created to represent this differentiated resource.
> > > > >
> > > > > A follow on change arranges for device-dax to claim these devices by
> > > > > default and provide an mmap interface for the target application.
> > > > > However, if the administrator prefers that some or all of the special
> > > > > purpose memory is made available to the core-mm the device-dax hotplug
> > > > > facility can be used to online the memory with its own numa node.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > > > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> > > > > Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Hi Dan,
> > > >
> > > > Great to see you getting this discussion going so fast and in
> > > > general the approach makes sense to me.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a little confused why HMAT has anything to do with this.
> > > > SPM is defined either via the attribute in SRAT SPA entries,
> > > > EF_MEMORY_SP or via the EFI memory map.
> > > >
> > > > Whether it is in HMAT or not isn't all that relevant.
> > > > Back in the days of the reservation hint (so before yesterday :)
> > > > it was relevant obviously but that's no longer true.
> > > >
> > > > So what am I missing?
> > >
> > > It's a good question, and an assumption I should have explicitly
> > > declared in the changelog. The problem with EFI_MEMORY_SP is the same
> > > as the problem with the EfiPersistentMemory type, it isn't precise
> > > enough on its own for the kernel to delineate 'type' or
> > > device/replaceable-unit boundaries. For example, I expect one
> > > EFI_MEMORY_SP range of a specific type may be contiguous with another
> > > range of a different type. Similar to the NFIT there is no requirement
> > > in the specification that platform firmware inject multiple range
> > > entries. Instead that precision is left to the SRAT + HMAT, or the
> > > NFIT in the case of PMEM.
> >
> > Absolutely, as long as they are all SPM, they could be anywhere in
> > the system.
> >
> > >
> > > Conversely, and thinking through this a bit more, if a memory range is
> > > "special", but the platform fails to enumerate it in HMAT I think
> > > Linux should scream loudly that the firmware is broken and leave the
> > > range alone. The "scream loudly" piece is missing in the current set,
> > > but the "leave the range alone" functionality is included.
> >
> > I am certainly keen on screaming if the various entries are inconsistent
> > but am not sure they necessarily are here.
> >
> > So there are a couple of ways we could get an SPM range defined.
> > The key thing here is that firmware should be attempting to describe
> > what it has to some degree somewhere. If not it won't get a good
> > result ;) So if there is no SRAT then you are on your own. SCREAM!
> >
> > 1. Directly in the memory map. If there is no other information then
> > tough luck the kernel can only sensibly handle it as one device.
> > Or not at all, which seems like a reasonable decision to me.
> > SCREAM
> >
> > 2. In memory map + a proximity domain entry in SRAT. Given memory
> > with different characteristics should be in different proximity
> > domains anyway - this should be fairly precise. The slight snag
> > here is that the fine grained nature of SRAT is actually a side
> > effect of HMAT, so not sure well platforms have traditional
> > describe their more subtle differences.
> >
> > 3. In NFIT as NFIT SPA carries the memory attribute. Not sure if
> > we should scream if this disagrees with the memory map.
> >
> > 4. In HMAT? Now this changed in ACPI 6.3 to clean up the 'messy'
> > prior relationship between it and SRAT. Now HMAT no longer has
> > memory address ranges as you observed. That means, to describe
> > properties of memory, it has to use the proximity domains of
> > SRAT. It provides lots of additional info about those domains
> > but it is SRAT that defines them.
> >
> > So I would argue that HMAT itself doesn't tell us anything useful.
> > SRAT certainly does though so I think this should be coming from
> > SRAT (or NFIT as that also defines the required precision)
>
> I agree, yes, SRAT by itself is sufficient for this "precision"
> concern. However, do we, core Linux developers, really want to
> encourage platform vendors that they can ignore deploying HMAT data
> and get Linux to honor that sub-case for EFI_MEMORY_SP? My personal
> experience is that platform firmware will take advantage of almost any
> opportunity to minimize the data it provides to the OS. The only hard
> lever Linux has to encourage platform firmware to give complete data
> is to decline to support configurations that have incomplete data.
>

If we decide as a community that this is the way we want to go, I'm
happy to politely point it out to our firmware people (who are a more
proactive group on detailed system descriptions than many!)

If we make this a clearly stated policy, perhaps via some comments
in the code or Documentation/ that that would be even better
and avoid people taking the 'but you could support my firmware'
line in the future.

I'll see if I can reach out to other OS vendors as well so we
can present a unified front on this (perhaps after a few days, just
in case we have any dissenting voices here!)

Thanks,

Jonathan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-05 19:41    [W:0.047 / U:1.612 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site