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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 1F011C3A5A2 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:44:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E714233FC for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:44:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6E714233FC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DsN21JzVzDr1b for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 03:44:02 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46DsHm0mtCzDrQ6 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 03:40:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7MHd5CF096779 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:40:13 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uhy8wgvr7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:40:13 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:40:11 +0100 Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.194) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:40:08 +0100 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7MHe7jG22806866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:40:07 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FE14C05C; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:40:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7814C046; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:40:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:40:06 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 23:10:05 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] powerpc/numa: Early request for home node associativity References: <20190822144235.19398-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190822144235.19398-3-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87ftltruf7.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ftltruf7.fsf@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19082217-0016-0000-0000-000002A1A3CF X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19082217-0017-0000-0000-00003301DE58 Message-Id: <20190822174005.GA31809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-22_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908220158 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Nicholas Piggin Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Nathan Lynch [2019-08-22 12:17:48]: > Hi Srikar, Thanks Nathan for the review. > > > However home node associativity requires cpu's hwid which is set in > > smp_setup_pacas. Hence call smp_setup_pacas before numa_setup_cpus. > > But this seems like it would negatively affect pacas' NUMA placements? > > Would it be less risky to figure out a way to do "early" VPHN hcalls > before mem_topology_setup, getting the hwids from the cpu_to_phys_id > array perhaps? > Do you mean for calls from mem_topology_setup(), stuff we use cpu_to_phys_id but for the calls from ppc_numa_cpu_prepare() we use the get_hard_smp_processor_id()? Thats doable. > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > > index 88b5157..7965d3b 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > > @@ -461,6 +461,21 @@ static int of_drconf_to_nid_single(struct drmem_lmb *lmb) > > return nid; > > } > > > > +static int vphn_get_nid(unsigned long cpu) > > +{ > > + __be32 associativity[VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE] = {0}; > > + long rc; > > + > > + /* Use associativity from first thread for all siblings */ > > I don't understand how this comment corresponds to the code it > accompanies. Okay will rephrase > > > > + rc = hcall_vphn(get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu), > > + VPHN_FLAG_VCPU, associativity); > > + > > + if (rc == H_SUCCESS) > > + return associativity_to_nid(associativity); > ^^ extra space > > > @@ -490,7 +505,18 @@ static int numa_setup_cpu(unsigned long lcpu) > > goto out; > > } > > > > - nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu); > > + /* > > + * On a shared lpar, the device tree might not have the correct node > > + * associativity. At this time lppaca, or its __old_status field > > Sorry but I'm going to quibble with this phrasing a bit. On SPLPAR the > CPU nodes have no affinity information in the device tree at all. This > comment implies that they may have incorrect information, which is > AFAIK not the case. > Okay will clarify. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju