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

[Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Ganapatrao,

On 08/29/2015 10:56 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Thunder,
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Leizhen (ThunderTown)
> <thunder.leizhen-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2015/8/28 22:02, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> +benh
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> 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
> 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.

Great thanks!

> 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.

I'm not sure why the ITS needs to know the NUMA domain, for my
understanding, the interrupt will route to the correct NUMA domain
using setting the affinity, ITS will configured to route it to
the right GICR(cpu), so I think the ITS don't need to know which
NUMA node belonging to, correct me if I missed something.

Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html