From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFB4C433E0 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E622073E for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:30:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 08E622073E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AAD036B000C; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A5DF26B000D; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:30:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 99BDD6B000E; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:30:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0002.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.2]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838B66B000C for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCB68248047 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:30:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77007281778.26.waves94_3e1630026eab Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6B91804B654 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:30:29 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: waves94_3e1630026eab X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4260 Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 10:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6C1BE820FBC114AEC6D9; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:30:26 +0100 (IST) Received: from localhost (10.52.123.111) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:30:25 +0100 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:29:21 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Jia He CC: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , Baoquan He , Chuhong Yuan , , , , Kaly Xin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64/numa: set numa_off to false when numa node is fake Message-ID: <20200706112921.00006f7f@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20200706011947.184166-2-justin.he@arm.com> References: <20200706011947.184166-1-justin.he@arm.com> <20200706011947.184166-2-justin.he@arm.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.52.123.111] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml717-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.68) To lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0B6B91804B654 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 09:19:45 +0800 Jia He wrote: Hi, > Previously, numa_off is set to true unconditionally in dummy_numa_init(), > even if there is a fake numa node. > > But acpi will translate node id to NUMA_NO_NODE(-1) in acpi_map_pxm_to_node() > because it regards numa_off as turning off the numa node. That is correct. It is operating exactly as it should, if SRAT hasn't been parsed and you are on ACPI platform there are no nodes. They cannot be created at some later date. The dummy code doesn't change this. It just does enough to carry on operating with no specified nodes. > > Without this patch, pmem can't be probed as a RAM device on arm64 if SRAT table > isn't present. > > $ndctl create-namespace -fe namespace0.0 --mode=devdax --map=dev -s 1g -a 64K > kmem dax0.0: rejecting DAX region [mem 0x240400000-0x2bfffffff] with invalid node: -1 > kmem: probe of dax0.0 failed with error -22 > > This fixes it by setting numa_off to false. Without the SRAT protection patch [1] you may well run into problems because someone somewhere will have _PXM in a DSDT but will have a non existent SRAT. We had this happen on an AMD platform when we tried to introduce working _PXM support for PCI. [2] So whilst this seems superficially safe, I'd definitely be crossing your fingers. Note, at that time I proposed putting the numa_off = false into the x86 code path precisely to cut out that possibility (was rejected at the time, at least partly because the clarifications to the ACPI spec were not pubilc.) The patch in [1] should sort things out however by ensuring we only create new domains where we should actually be doing so. However, in your case it will return NUMA_NO_NODE anyway so this isn't the right way to fix things. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11632063/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10597777/ Thanks, Jonathan > > Signed-off-by: Jia He > --- > arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > index aafcee3e3f7e..7689986020d9 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > @@ -440,7 +440,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void) > return ret; > } > > - numa_off = true; > + /* force numa_off to be false since we have a fake numa node here */ > + numa_off = false; > return 0; > } >