On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:39 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:24 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:09 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:36 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Disable parsing of the HMAT for debug, to workaround broken platform > > > > instances, or cases where it is otherwise not wanted. > > > > > > Rafael, any heartburn with this change to the numa= option? > > > > > > ...as I look at this I realize I failed to also update > > > Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.rst, will fix. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Apart from this just a minor nit below. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++++ > > > > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 3 ++- > > > > include/acpi/acpi_numa.h | 1 + > > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > > index 59ba008504dc..22de2e2610c1 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ static __init int numa_setup(char *opt) > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA > > > > if (!strncmp(opt, "noacpi", 6)) > > > > acpi_numa = -1; > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HMAT > > > > + if (!strncmp(opt, "nohmat", 6)) > > > > + hmat_disable = 1; > > > > +#endif > > > > I wonder if IS_ENABLED() would work here? > > I took a look. hmat_disable, acpi_numa, and numa_emu_cmdline() are in > other compilation units. I could wrap writing those variables with > helper functions, and change numa_emu_cmdline(), to compile away when > their respective configuration options are not present. > > Should we do that in general to have a touch point to report "you > specified an option that is invalid for your current kernel > configuration"? I'm happy to do that as a follow-on if you think it's > worthwhile. Yes, please.
