From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEECD18B494; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741971310; cv=none; b=WXb+ectPopU3zikjNQ77t4ZuAa5de2ZVDUQvWjcdgaSxjCUkEl6Cb7ks0cwS74xnkQk91aQkh87r8R2ByVzESopsCynejrJArqWIKI3/DeSw8tZVTnpYZ+xQLKnjCwiF6MX6o/IngyxVg/WSMjyBC62TQfznWW69rFyEprMRhic= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741971310; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eaqevo/8WPvN75TZGDjs5LPg1x4Azhhw0UeGvQTfxw8=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Ud5QyKexls1bSbYFle3uVVP9ad7Nk8cgmPwr/s0d7MkiTeMZ5jJmpK3aGa5ivpVpnZj7vLqzxc4D1X1pMpJVMZCY7GkD9G4ZYkrLKhmrH+0S7VVahtSqds8q9duW/Qo+Da8uylODYyyP9cTtWf8+DCTXwvBIObYOmULPThTag4A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZDr5257m2z6JB73; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:52:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0952A140442; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:55:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:55:03 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:55:01 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Gregory Price CC: Yuquan Wang , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: NUMA: debug invalid unused PXM value for CFMWs Message-ID: <20250314165501.00000606@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20250313060907.2381416-1-wangyuquan1236@phytium.com.cn> <20250314101226.00003830@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:38:24 -0400 Gregory Price wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:12:26AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:02:37 -0400 > > Gregory Price wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:09:07PM +0800, Yuquan Wang wrote: > > > > @@ -441,6 +441,11 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, > > > > start = cfmws->base_hpa; > > > > end = cfmws->base_hpa + cfmws->window_size; > > > > > > > > + if (srat_disabled()) { > > > > + pr_err("SRAT is missing or bad while processing CFMWS.\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > > > I thought the srat was optional regardless of the presence of a CFMWS. > > > Is this not the case? > > > > True in theory, but do we want to support it? > > > > I'd vote no unless someone is shipping such a system and can't fix it up. > > > > Jonathan > > > > Well, this is really the patch trying to deal with that I suppose. The > code here already states its creating 1 node per CFMWS in the absense of > srat - but this patch just changes that and says "no nodes 4 u". I > don't think that's what we want either. Under this specific set of circumstances, "no nodes 4 u" is to me a perfectly valid answer. Jonathan > > ~Gregory