Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: PPTT: Dump PPTT table when error detected

Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-01-13T16:21:19Z

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:03 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 06:49:09PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > There was warning message about PPTT table:
> >
> > "ACPI PPTT: PPTT table found, but unable to locate core 1 (1)",
> >
> > and it in turn caused scheduler warnings when building up the system.
> > It took a while to root cause the problem be related a broken PPTT
> > table which has wrong cache information.
> >
> > To speedup debugging similar issues, dump the PPTT table, which makes
> > the warning more noticeable and helps bug hunting.
> >
> > The dumped info format on a ARM server is like:
> >
> > ACPI PPTT: Processors:
> > P[ 0][0x0024]: parent=0x0000 acpi_proc_id= 0 num_res=1 flags=0x11(package)
> > P[ 1][0x005a]: parent=0x0024 acpi_proc_id= 0 num_res=1 flags=0x12()
> > P[ 2][0x008a]: parent=0x005a acpi_proc_id= 0 num_res=3 flags=0x1a(leaf)
> > P[ 3][0x00f2]: parent=0x005a acpi_proc_id= 1 num_res=3 flags=0x1a(leaf)
> > P[ 4][0x015a]: parent=0x005a acpi_proc_id= 2 num_res=3 flags=0x1a(leaf)
> > ...
> > ACPI PPTT: Caches:
> > C[ 0][0x0072]: flags=0x7f next_level=0x0000 size=0x4000000 sets=65536 way=16 attribute=0xa line_size=64
> > C[ 1][0x00aa]: flags=0x7f next_level=0x00da size=0x10000 sets=256 way=4 attribute=0x4 line_size=64
> > C[ 2][0x00c2]: flags=0x7f next_level=0x00da size=0x10000 sets=256 way=4 attribute=0x2 line_size=64
> > C[ 3][0x00da]: flags=0x7f next_level=0x0000 size=0x100000 sets=2048 way=8 attribute=0xa line_size=64
> > ...
> >
> > It provides a global and straightforward view of the hierarchy of the
> > processor and caches info of the platform, and from the offset info
> > (the 3rd column), the child-parent relation could be checked.
> >
> > With this, the root cause of the original issue was pretty obvious,
> > that there were some caches items missing which caused the issue when
> > building up scheduler domain.
> >
>
> While this may sound like a good idea, it deviates from how errors in other
> table-parsing code are handled. Instead of dumping the entire table, it would
> be preferable to report the specific issue encountered during parsing.
>
> I do not have a strong objection if Rafael is comfortable with this approach;

I'm not a big fan of it TBH.

> however, it does differ from the established pattern used by similar code.
> Dumping the entire table in a custom manner is not the standard way of
> handling parsing errors. Just my opinion.

I agree.