Re: [PATCH v11 08/10] dt, numa: Add NUMA dt binding implementation.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/01/2016 08:47 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:26 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/23/2016 11:36 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:13:17PM -0800, David Daney wrote:

From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

ADD device tree node parsing for NUMA topology using device
"numa-node-id" property distance-map.


I still want an adequate explanation why NUMA setup cannot be done with
an unflattened tree. PowerPC manages to do that and should have a
similar init flow being memblock based, so I would expect arm64 can too.


Many things could be done.  Really, we want to know what *should* be done.

In the context of the current arm64 memory initialization we (more or less)
do:

  1) early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem();
  2) memory_present()
  3) sparse_init()
  4) other things
  5) unflatten_device_tree()

We are already reading information out of the FDT at #1.

This patch set adds a step between 1 and 2 where we read NUMA information
out of the FDT.

The dependency on unflattening is that memblock is up and we can
allocate a chunk from it. Isn't that dependency met by step 1

No.

or is
there a dependency on sparsemem (or something else)?

Will Deacon talked about this over here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/26/782

I am happy to modify the patch set, but I don't want to get stuck as an intermediary between two opposing blocs.

David Daney


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux