From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@numascale.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steffen Persvold <sp@numascale.com>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
kim.naru@amd.com,
Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix northbridge quirk to assign correct NUMA node
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:38:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <532BB431.7020501@numascale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo6psgDr3XYh6m+vYcAOix2Vttrwz1jK7bS47Liy2Lw-=g@mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/2014 06:07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc linux-pci, Myron, Suravee, Kim, Aravind]
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Daniel J Blueman <daniel@numascale.com> wrote:
>> For systems with multiple servers and routed fabric, all northbridges get
>> assigned to the first server. Fix this by also using the node reported from
>> the PCI bus. For single-fabric systems, the northbriges are on PCI bus 0
>> by definition, which are on NUMA node 0 by definition, so this is invarient
>> on most systems.
>>
>> Tested on fam10h and fam15h single and multi-fabric systems and candidate
>> for stable.
> I wish this had been cc'd to linux-pci. We're talking about a related
> change by Suravee there. In fact, we were hoping this quirk could be
> removed altogether.
Noted.
> I don't understand what this quirk is doing. Normally we discover the
> NUMA node for a PCI host bridge via the ACPI _PXM method. The way
> _PXM works is that every PCI device in the hierarchy below the bridge
> inherits the same node number as the host bridge. I first thought
> this might be a workaround for a system that lacks _PXM, but I don't
> think that can be right, because you're only changing the node for a
> few devices, not the whole hierarchy.
>
> So I suspect the problem is more complicated, and maybe _PXM is
> insufficient to describe the topology? Are there subtrees that should
> have nodes different from the host bridge?
Yes; see below.
> I know this patch is already in v3.14-rc7, but I'd still like to
> understand it so we can do the right thing with Suravee's patch.
The _PXM method associates each northbridge with the first NUMA node, 0
in single-fabric systems, and eg 4 for the second server in a
multi-fabric system with 2 dual-module Opterons (with 2 NUMA nodes
internally) etc, since the northbridges appear in the PCI tree, under
the host bridge, not above it [1].
With _PXM, the rest of the PCI bus hierarchy has the right NUMA node
associated, but the northbridge PCI devices should be associated with
their actual NUMA node, 0, 1, 2, 3 for the first server in this example.
The quirk fixes this up; irqbalance at least uses this NUMA data exposed
in /sys.
The alternative to the quirk may be to explicitly express the
northbridge PCI devices in the AML with their own _PXM methods. If it's
valid, it may be the honest approach, though the quirk may be needed for
most BIOSs; I can check the AML on a few servers to confirm if helpful.
Thanks,
Daniel
[1] http://quora.org/2014/lspci.txt
--
Daniel J Blueman
Principal Software Engineer, Numascale
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-21 3:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-13 11:43 [PATCH] Fix northbridge quirk to assign correct NUMA node Daniel J Blueman
2014-03-14 9:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-03-14 9:57 ` Daniel J Blueman
2014-03-14 10:09 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86/amd/numa: " tip-bot for Daniel J Blueman
2014-03-20 22:07 ` [PATCH] " Bjorn Helgaas
2014-03-21 3:38 ` Daniel J Blueman [this message]
2014-03-21 16:11 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-03-24 6:03 ` Daniel J Blueman
2014-03-21 17:16 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2014-03-23 14:30 ` Daniel J Blueman
2014-03-21 3:51 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
2014-03-21 4:14 ` Daniel J Blueman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=532BB431.7020501@numascale.com \
--to=daniel@numascale.com \
--cc=aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kim.naru@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=myron.stowe@redhat.com \
--cc=sp@numascale.com \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox