Hi Lorenzo, Punit,
On 2018/6/20 0:32, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:35:40PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue 19-06-18 15:54:26, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> In terms of $SUBJECT, I wonder if it's worth taking the original patch
>>>> as a temporary fix (it'll also be easier to backport) while we work on
>>>> fixing these other issues and enabling memoryless nodes.
>>>
>>> Well, x86 already does that but copying this antipatern is not really
>>> nice. So it is good as a quick fix but it would be definitely much
>>> better to have a robust fix. Who knows how many other places might hit
>>> this. You certainly do not want to add a hack like this all over...
>>
>> Completely agree! I was only suggesting it as a temporary measure,
>> especially as it looked like a proper fix might be invasive.
>>
>> Another fix might be to change the node specific allocation to node
>> agnostic allocations. It isn't clear why the allocation is being
>> requested from a specific node. I think Lorenzo suggested this in one of
>> the threads.
>
> I think that code was just copypasted but it is better to fix the
> underlying issue.
>
>> I've started putting together a set fixing the issues identified in this
>> thread. It should give a better idea on the best course of action.
>
> On ACPI ARM64, this diff should do if I read the code correctly, it
> should be (famous last words) just a matter of mapping PXMs to nodes for
> every SRAT GICC entry, feel free to pick it up if it works.
>
> Yes, we can take the original patch just because it is safer for an -rc
> cycle even though if the patch below would do delaying the fix for a
> couple of -rc (to get it tested across ACPI ARM64 NUMA platforms) is
> not a disaster.
I tested this patch on my arm board, it works.
--
Thanks,
Xie XiuQi
>
> Lorenzo
>
> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> index d190a7b231bf..877b268ef9fa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> @@ -70,12 +70,6 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> if (!(pa->flags & ACPI_SRAT_GICC_ENABLED))
> return;
>
> - if (cpus_in_srat >= NR_CPUS) {
> - pr_warn_once("SRAT: cpu_to_node_map[%d] is too small, may not be able to use all cpus\n",
> - NR_CPUS);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> pxm = pa->proximity_domain;
> node = acpi_map_pxm_to_node(pxm);
>
> @@ -85,6 +79,14 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> return;
> }
>
> + node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
> +
> + if (cpus_in_srat >= NR_CPUS) {
> + pr_warn_once("SRAT: cpu_to_node_map[%d] is too small, may not be able to use all cpus\n",
> + NR_CPUS);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> mpidr = acpi_map_madt_entry(pa->acpi_processor_uid);
> if (mpidr == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID) {
> pr_err("SRAT: PXM %d with ACPI ID %d has no valid MPIDR in MADT\n",
> @@ -95,7 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
>
> early_node_cpu_hwid[cpus_in_srat].node_id = node;
> early_node_cpu_hwid[cpus_in_srat].cpu_hwid = mpidr;
> - node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
> cpus_in_srat++;
> pr_info("SRAT: PXM %d -> MPIDR 0x%Lx -> Node %d\n",
> pxm, mpidr, node);
>
> .
>
