Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: PCI: Validate the node before setting node id for root bus | From | Baolin Wang <> | Date | Tue, 29 Sep 2020 23:41:29 +0800 |
| |
Hi,
在 2020/9/28 23:23, Lorenzo Pieralisi 写道: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:49:57PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 03:00:55PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>> [+ Lorenzo] >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 06:33:24PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>> If the BIOS disabled the NUMA configuration, but did not change the >>>> proximity domain description in the SRAT table, so the PCI root bus >>>> device may get a incorrect node id by acpi_get_node(). >>> >>> How "incorrect" are we talking here? What actually goes wrong? At some >>> point, we have to trust what the firmware is telling us. >> >> What I mean is, if we disable the NUMA from BIOS > > Please define what this means ie are you removing SRAT from ACPI static > tables ?
Yes.
> >> but we did not change the PXM for the PCI devices, > > If a _PXM maps to a proximity domain that is not described in the SRAT > your firmware is buggy.
Sorry for confusing, that's not what I mean. When the BIOS disable the NUMA (remove the SRAT table), but the PCI devices' _PXM description is still available, which means we can still get the pxm from acpi_evaluate_integer() in this case.
So we can get below inconsistent log on ARM platform: "No NUMA configuration found PCI_bus 0000:00 on NUMA node 0 ... PCI_bus 0000:e3 on NUMA node 1"
On X86, the pci_acpi_root_get_node() will validate the node before setting the node id for root bus. So I think we can add this validation for ARM platform. Or anything else I missed?
> >> so the PCI devices can still get a numa node id from acpi_get_node(). >> For example, we can still get the numa node id = 1 in this case from >> acpi_get_node(), but the numa_nodes_parsed is empty, which means the >> node id 1 is invalid. We should add a validation for the node id when >> setting the root bus node id. > > The kernel is not a firmware validation test suite, so fix the firmware > please. > > Having said that, please provide a trace log of the issue this is > causing, if any.
See above.
| |