From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, <rafael@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Brice Goglin" <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com>,
<linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:42:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200821094258.00007925@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200820222129.GA1571389@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:21:29 -0500
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:51:09PM +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure
> > changed substantially. One of those changes was that the flag
> > for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated.
> >
> > This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory"
> > became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes
> > no sense.
> >
> > So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there.
> > Current code assumes it never is.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > index 2c32cfb72370..07cfe50136e0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade
> > pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%u Memory Domain:%u\n",
> > p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD);
> >
> > - if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) {
> > + if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision == 2) {
>
Hi Bjorn,
> I hope/assume the spec is written in such a way that p->memory_PD is
> required for any revision > 1? So maybe this should be:
>
> if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) ||
> hmat_revision > 1) {
Good point. We have existing protections elsewhere against hmat_revision
being anything other than 1 or 2, so we should aim to keep that in only one place.
I'll tidy this up for v10.
thanks,
Jonathan
>
> > target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
> > if (!target) {
> > pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: rafael@kernel.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxarm@huawei.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:42:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200821094258.00007925@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200820222129.GA1571389@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:21:29 -0500
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:51:09PM +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure
> > changed substantially. One of those changes was that the flag
> > for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated.
> >
> > This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory"
> > became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes
> > no sense.
> >
> > So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there.
> > Current code assumes it never is.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > index 2c32cfb72370..07cfe50136e0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade
> > pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%u Memory Domain:%u\n",
> > p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD);
> >
> > - if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) {
> > + if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision == 2) {
>
Hi Bjorn,
> I hope/assume the spec is written in such a way that p->memory_PD is
> required for any revision > 1? So maybe this should be:
>
> if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) ||
> hmat_revision > 1) {
Good point. We have existing protections elsewhere against hmat_revision
being anything other than 1 or 2, so we should aim to keep that in only one place.
I'll tidy this up for v10.
thanks,
Jonathan
>
> > target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
> > if (!target) {
> > pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-19 14:51 [PATCH v9 0/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator proximity domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 1/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator only domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 2/6] x86: Support Generic Initiator only proximity domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-20 22:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-20 22:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 8:54 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 8:54 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 3/6] ACPI: Let ACPI know we support Generic Initiator Affinity Structures Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-20 22:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-20 22:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 8:42 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2020-08-21 8:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 12:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 12:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 12:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 12:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 13:46 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 13:46 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 14:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 14:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 16:37 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 16:37 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 16:54 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 16:54 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 5/6] node: Add access1 class to represent CPU to memory characteristics Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 6/6] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for access class 1 Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200821094258.00007925@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=Brice.Goglin@inria.fr \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.