From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
debian-ia64 <debian-ia64@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] sched/topology: NUMA distance deduplication
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:04:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgz1pmx4.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cf4d7277-54a0-8bc7-60fb-9b2f6befb511@physik.fu-berlin.de>
On 17/03/21 20:47, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Helo Valentin!
>
> On 3/17/21 8:36 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> I see ACPI in your boot logs, so I'm guessing you have a bogus SLIT table
>> (the ACPI table with node distances). You should be able to double check
>> this with something like:
>>
>> $ acpidump > acpi.dump
>> $ acpixtract -a acpi.dump
>> $ iasl -d *.dat
>> $ cat slit.dsl
>
> There does not seem to be a SLIT table in my firmware:
>
> root@glendronach:~# acpidump > acpi.dump
> root@glendronach:~# acpixtract -a acpi.dump
>
> Intel ACPI Component Architecture
> ACPI Binary Table Extraction Utility version 20200925
> Copyright (c) 2000 - 2020 Intel Corporation
>
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e91
> SSDT - 3768 bytes written (0x00000EB8) - ssdt1.dat
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e00
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e91
> SPCR - 80 bytes written (0x00000050) - spcr.dat
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e00
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e91
> APIC - 200 bytes written (0x000000C8) - apic.dat
> SSDT - 1110 bytes written (0x00000456) - ssdt2.dat
> SSDT - 316 bytes written (0x0000013C) - ssdt3.dat
> SPMI - 80 bytes written (0x00000050) - spmi.dat
> DSDT - 58726 bytes written (0x0000E566) - dsdt.dat
> SSDT - 312 bytes written (0x00000138) - ssdt4.dat
> SSDT - 2150 bytes written (0x00000866) - ssdt5.dat
> SSDT - 316 bytes written (0x0000013C) - ssdt6.dat
> SSDT - 3768 bytes written (0x00000EB8) - ssdt7.dat
> FACP - 244 bytes written (0x000000F4) - facp.dat
> SSDT - 1203 bytes written (0x000004B3) - ssdt8.dat
> CPEP - 52 bytes written (0x00000034) - cpep.dat
> SSDT - 316 bytes written (0x0000013C) - ssdt9.dat
> DBGP - 52 bytes written (0x00000034) - dbgp.dat
> SSDT - 3768 bytes written (0x00000EB8) - ssdt10.dat
> FACS - 64 bytes written (0x00000040) - facs.dat
> root@glendronach:~#
>
> root@glendronach:~# ls *.dsl *.dat
> apic.dat cpep.dsl dsdt.dat facp.dsl spcr.dat spmi.dsl ssdt1.dat ssdt2.dsl ssdt4.dat ssdt5.dsl ssdt7.dat ssdt8.dsl
> apic.dsl dbgp.dat dsdt.dsl facs.dat spcr.dsl ssdt10.dat ssdt1.dsl ssdt3.dat ssdt4.dsl ssdt6.dat ssdt7.dsl ssdt9.dat
> cpep.dat dbgp.dsl facp.dat facs.dsl spmi.dat ssdt10.dsl ssdt2.dat ssdt3.dsl ssdt5.dat ssdt6.dsl ssdt8.dat ssdt9.dsl
> root@glendronach:~#
>
Huh, then this might be some initialization fail that leaves nr_node_ids to
MAX_NUMNODES, which must be 256 in your case (NODES_SHIFT=8). Devicetree
can provide node distances, but something tells me you're not using that :-)
>> a) Complain to your hardware vendor to have them fix the table and ship a
>> firmware fix
>
> The hardware is probably too old for the vendor to care about fixing it.
>
Indeed, I only realized that after googling your machine
>> b) Fix the ACPI table yourself - I've been told it's doable for *some* of
>> them, but I've never done that myself
>> c) Compile your kernel with CONFIG_NUMA=n, as AFAICT you only actually have
>> a single node
>> d) Ignore the warning
>>
>>
>> c) is clearly not ideal if you want to use a somewhat generic kernel image
>> on a wide host of machines; d) is also a bit yucky...
>
> Shouldn't the kernel be able to cope with quirky hardware? From what I remember in the past,
> ACPI tables used to be broken quite a lot and the kernel contained workarounds for such cases,
> didn't it?
>
Technically it *is* coping with it, it's just dumping the entire NUMA
distance matrix in the process... Let me see if I can't figure out why your
system doesn't end up with nr_node_ids=1.
> Adrian
>
> --
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
debian-ia64 <debian-ia64@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] sched/topology: NUMA distance deduplication
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:04:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgz1pmx4.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cf4d7277-54a0-8bc7-60fb-9b2f6befb511@physik.fu-berlin.de>
On 17/03/21 20:47, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Helo Valentin!
>
> On 3/17/21 8:36 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> I see ACPI in your boot logs, so I'm guessing you have a bogus SLIT table
>> (the ACPI table with node distances). You should be able to double check
>> this with something like:
>>
>> $ acpidump > acpi.dump
>> $ acpixtract -a acpi.dump
>> $ iasl -d *.dat
>> $ cat slit.dsl
>
> There does not seem to be a SLIT table in my firmware:
>
> root@glendronach:~# acpidump > acpi.dump
> root@glendronach:~# acpixtract -a acpi.dump
>
> Intel ACPI Component Architecture
> ACPI Binary Table Extraction Utility version 20200925
> Copyright (c) 2000 - 2020 Intel Corporation
>
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e91
> SSDT - 3768 bytes written (0x00000EB8) - ssdt1.dat
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e00
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e91
> SPCR - 80 bytes written (0x00000050) - spcr.dat
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e00
> acpixtract(31194): unaligned access to 0x60000fffff9b3925, ip=0x4000000000003e91
> APIC - 200 bytes written (0x000000C8) - apic.dat
> SSDT - 1110 bytes written (0x00000456) - ssdt2.dat
> SSDT - 316 bytes written (0x0000013C) - ssdt3.dat
> SPMI - 80 bytes written (0x00000050) - spmi.dat
> DSDT - 58726 bytes written (0x0000E566) - dsdt.dat
> SSDT - 312 bytes written (0x00000138) - ssdt4.dat
> SSDT - 2150 bytes written (0x00000866) - ssdt5.dat
> SSDT - 316 bytes written (0x0000013C) - ssdt6.dat
> SSDT - 3768 bytes written (0x00000EB8) - ssdt7.dat
> FACP - 244 bytes written (0x000000F4) - facp.dat
> SSDT - 1203 bytes written (0x000004B3) - ssdt8.dat
> CPEP - 52 bytes written (0x00000034) - cpep.dat
> SSDT - 316 bytes written (0x0000013C) - ssdt9.dat
> DBGP - 52 bytes written (0x00000034) - dbgp.dat
> SSDT - 3768 bytes written (0x00000EB8) - ssdt10.dat
> FACS - 64 bytes written (0x00000040) - facs.dat
> root@glendronach:~#
>
> root@glendronach:~# ls *.dsl *.dat
> apic.dat cpep.dsl dsdt.dat facp.dsl spcr.dat spmi.dsl ssdt1.dat ssdt2.dsl ssdt4.dat ssdt5.dsl ssdt7.dat ssdt8.dsl
> apic.dsl dbgp.dat dsdt.dsl facs.dat spcr.dsl ssdt10.dat ssdt1.dsl ssdt3.dat ssdt4.dsl ssdt6.dat ssdt7.dsl ssdt9.dat
> cpep.dat dbgp.dsl facp.dat facs.dsl spmi.dat ssdt10.dsl ssdt2.dat ssdt3.dsl ssdt5.dat ssdt6.dsl ssdt8.dat ssdt9.dsl
> root@glendronach:~#
>
Huh, then this might be some initialization fail that leaves nr_node_ids to
MAX_NUMNODES, which must be 256 in your case (NODES_SHIFT==8). Devicetree
can provide node distances, but something tells me you're not using that :-)
>> a) Complain to your hardware vendor to have them fix the table and ship a
>> firmware fix
>
> The hardware is probably too old for the vendor to care about fixing it.
>
Indeed, I only realized that after googling your machine
>> b) Fix the ACPI table yourself - I've been told it's doable for *some* of
>> them, but I've never done that myself
>> c) Compile your kernel with CONFIG_NUMA=n, as AFAICT you only actually have
>> a single node
>> d) Ignore the warning
>>
>>
>> c) is clearly not ideal if you want to use a somewhat generic kernel image
>> on a wide host of machines; d) is also a bit yucky...
>
> Shouldn't the kernel be able to cope with quirky hardware? From what I remember in the past,
> ACPI tables used to be broken quite a lot and the kernel contained workarounds for such cases,
> didn't it?
>
Technically it *is* coping with it, it's just dumping the entire NUMA
distance matrix in the process... Let me see if I can't figure out why your
system doesn't end up with nr_node_ids=1.
> Adrian
>
> --
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-17 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-17 19:04 [PATCH 0/1] sched/topology: NUMA distance deduplication John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-17 19:36 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-17 19:36 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-17 19:47 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-17 19:47 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-17 20:04 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-03-17 20:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-17 20:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-17 20:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-17 23:26 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-17 23:26 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-18 10:28 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-18 10:28 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-18 10:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-18 10:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-03-17 21:14 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2021-03-17 21:14 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2021-03-17 21:58 ` Anatoly Pugachev
2021-03-17 21:58 ` Anatoly Pugachev
2021-03-17 23:29 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2021-03-17 23:29 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-01-22 12:39 Valentin Schneider
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=87zgz1pmx4.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=debian-ia64@lists.debian.org \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=slyfox@gentoo.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.