[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: PCI: Validate the node before setting node id for root bus

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 ?


>> 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-29 17:42    [W:0.080 / U:12.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site