On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:52:46 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:57 AM Tao Xu <tao3.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 11/13/2019 5:47 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:55:17 -0800 > > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> [ add Tao Xu ] > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:45 AM Jonathan Cameron > > >> <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Generic Initiators are a new ACPI concept that allows for the > > >>> description of proximity domains that contain a device which > > >>> performs memory access (such as a network card) but neither > > >>> host CPU nor Memory. > > >>> > > >>> This patch has the parsing code and provides the infrastructure > > >>> for an architecture to associate these new domains with their > > >>> nearest memory processing node. > > >> > > >> Thanks for this Jonathan. May I ask how this was tested? Tao has been > > >> working on qemu support for HMAT [1]. I have not checked if it already > > >> supports generic initiator entries, but it would be helpful to include > > >> an example of how the kernel sees these configurations in practice. > > >> > > >> [1]: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1096737/ > > > > > > Tested against qemu with SRAT and SLIT table overrides from an > > > initrd to actually create the node and give it distances > > > (those all turn up correctly in the normal places). DSDT override > > > used to move an emulated network card into the GI numa node. That > > > currently requires the PCI patch referred to in the cover letter. > > > On arm64 tested both on qemu and real hardware (overrides on tables > > > even for real hardware as I can't persuade our BIOS team to implement > > > Generic Initiators until an OS is actually using them.) > > > > > > Main real requirement is memory allocations then occur from one of > > > the nodes at the minimal distance when you are do a devm_ allocation > > > from a device assigned. Also need to be able to query the distances > > > to allow load balancing etc. All that works as expected. > > > > > > It only has a fairly tangential connection to HMAT in that HMAT > > > can provide information on GI nodes. Given HMAT code is quite happy > > > with memoryless nodes anyway it should work. QEMU doesn't currently > > > have support to create GI SRAT entries let alone HMAT using them. > > > > > > Whilst I could look at adding such support to QEMU, it's not > > > exactly high priority to emulate something we can test easily > > > by overriding the tables before the kernel reads them. > > > > > > I'll look at how hard it is to build an HMAT tables for my test > > > configs based on the ones I used to test your HMAT patches a while > > > back. Should be easy if tedious. > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > Indeed, HMAT can support Generic Initiator, but as far as I know, QEMU > > only can emulate a node with cpu and memory, or memory-only. Even if we > > assign a node with cpu only, qemu will raise error. Considering > > compatibility, there are lots of work to do for QEMU if we change NUMA > > or SRAT table. > > Thanks for the background. It would still be a useful feature to be > able to define a memory + generic-initiator node in qemu. That will > mirror real world accelerators with local memory configurations. Ah crossed with my essay. This simple case you have here is easier to discuss. Lets call it a GPU on a coherent interconnect with local memory. What do you think should happen for access0 in sysfs? Do we want the GPU reflected in there or not? This particular case doesn't actually need a GI, though perhaps you might want one purely to give HMAT based info. On a pre GI system you would just use a memory only node and use DSDT _PXM to put the GPU device in it. Whilst I agree a means of testing this in qemu might be more friendly than doing it by overriding tables, the overriding route lets you do the crazy corner cases + generate 'invalid' tables which are also useful for testing. Thanks, Jonathan
