[PATCH v5 2/4] Documentation: arm64/arm: dt bindings for numa.

[thunder.leizhen@huawei.com (Leizhen (ThunderTown))]

On 2015/8/29 22:56, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Thunder,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Leizhen (ThunderTown)
> <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2015/8/28 22:02, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> +benh
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>> DT bindings for numa map for memory, cores and IOs using
>>>>> arm,associativity device node property.
>>>>
>>>> Given this is just a copy of ibm,associativity, I'm not sure I see much
>>>> point in renaming the properties.
>>>
>>> So just keep the ibm? I'm okay with that. That would help move to
>>> common code. Alternatively, we could drop the vendor prefix and have
>>> common code just check for both.
>>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Why not copy the method of ACPI numa? There only three elements should be configured:
>> 1) a cpu belong to which node
>> 2) a memory block belong to which node
>> 3) the distance of each two nodes
>>
>> The devicetree nodes of numa can be like below:
>> / {
>>         ...
>>
>>         numa-nodes-info {
>>                 node-name: node-description {
>>                         mem-ranges = <...>;
>>                         cpus-list = <...>;
>>                 };
>>
>>                 nodes-distance {
>>                         distance-list = <...>;
>>                 };
>>         };
>>
>>         ...
>> };
>>
> some what similar to what your are proposing is already implemented in
> my v2 patchset.
> https://lwn.net/Articles/623920/
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/305164.html

Sorry, I have not read your old version patchsets before.

The basic ideas are consistent, but details are different. I think your v2 patchset may meet some problem:

-------------------------
+- cpu-map:	This property defines the association of range of processors
+		(range of cpu ids) and the proximity domain to which
+		the processor belongs.

+		cpu-map = <0 7 0>,
+			  <8 15 1>;
-------------------------

1.
I am not sure the cpu ids is logical cpu-ids in Linux or the sequence number of the CPU dt-nodes in dts.
The former case: logical cpu-id is allocated by Linux, we can not ensure that cpu0 is the first CPU dt-node.
The latter case: depend on Linux strictly parse CPU dt-nodes follow the sequence in dts.

2. You should put most codes into /drivers/of/, because it can be shared with other ARCHs which base upon devicetree.

Here is my detailed example:
Examples:
/ {
	#address-cells = <2>;
	#size-cells = <2>;

	memory at 0 {
		device_type = "memory";
		reg = <0x0 0x00000000 0x0 0x40000000>,
		      <0x1 0x00000000 0x1 0x00000000>,
		      <0x2 0x00000000 0x0 0x40000000>,
		      <0x2 0x80000000 0x0 0x40000000>;
	};

	CPU0: cpu at 10000 {
		device_type = "cpu";
		reg = <0x10000>;
		...
	};

	numa-nodes-info {
		node0: cluster0 {
			mem-ranges = <0x0 0x00000000 0x1 0x00000000>;
			cpus-list = <&CPU0 &CPU1>;
		};

		node1: cluster1 {
			mem-ranges = <0x1 0x00000000 0x1 0x00000000>;
			cpus-list = <&CPU2>;
		};

		node2: cluster2 {
			mem-ranges = <0x2 0x00000000 0x1 0x00000000>;
			cpus-list = <&CPU3 &CPU4 &CPU5>;
		};

		nodes-distance {
			distance-list = <&node0 &node1 15>, <&node1 &node2 18>;
		};
	};

> we have went to associativity property based implementation to keep it
> more generic.
> i do have both acpi(using linaro/hanjun's patches) and associativity
> based implementations on our internal tree
> and tested on thunderx platform.
> i do see issue in creating numa mapping using ACPI for IOs(for
> example, i am not able to create numa mapping for ITS which is on each
> node, using ACPI tables),  since ACPI spec (tables SRAT and SLIT)
> talks only about processor and memory.
> however associativity is generic and you can apply on any dt node.
>> Sorry, I don't think xxx,associativity is a good method, it's hard to config, and it
>> seems hardware-dependent. Especially, when we want to support memory hot-add, it's too hard.
>> Because xxx,associativity have no obvious information about it. Like powerpc, it use another
>> property: "/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory".
>>
>> I spend almost a whole month to implement of_numa(configured by dt-nodes), base upon my opinion
>> mentioned above. If somebody are interested in it, I can send my patchset to show it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thunder.
>>
> thanks
> ganapat
> 
> .
>