Re: [PATCH 11/37] xen/x86: abstract neutral code from acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Wei Chen <wei.chen@arm.com>
Cc: Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	sstabellini@kernel.org, julien@xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/37] xen/x86: abstract neutral code from acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 17:50:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46759708-36a8-fcde-d0dc-f73401491cbc@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210923120236.3692135-12-wei.chen@arm.com>

On 23.09.2021 14:02, Wei Chen wrote:
> There is some code in acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init to update node
> memory range and update node_memblk_range array. This code is not
> ACPI specific, it can be shared by other NUMA implementation, like
> device tree based NUMA implementation.
> 
> So in this patch, we abstract this memory range and blocks relative
> code to a new function. This will avoid exporting static variables
> like node_memblk_range. And the PXM in neutral code print messages
> have been replaced by NODE, as PXM is ACPI specific.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@arm.com>

SRAT is an ACPI concept, which I assume has no meaning with DT. Hence
any generically usable logic here wants, I think, separating out into
a file which is not SRAT-specific (peeking ahead, specifically not a
file named "numa_srat.c"). This may in turn require some more though
regarding the proper split between the stuff remaining in srat.c and
the stuff becoming kind of library code. In particular this may mean
moving some of the static variables as well, and with them perhaps
some further functions (while I did peek ahead, I didn't look closely
at the later patch doing the actual movement). And it is then hard to
see why the separation needs to happen in two steps - you could move
the generically usable code to a new file right away.

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c
> @@ -104,6 +104,14 @@ nodeid_t setup_node(unsigned pxm)
>  	return node;
>  }
>  
> +bool __init numa_memblks_available(void)
> +{
> +	if (num_node_memblks < NR_NODE_MEMBLKS)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

Please can you avoid expressing things in more complex than necessary
ways? Here I don't see why it can't just be

bool __init numa_memblks_available(void)
{
	return num_node_memblks < NR_NODE_MEMBLKS;
}

> @@ -301,69 +309,35 @@ static bool __init is_node_memory_continuous(nodeid_t nid,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -/* Callback for parsing of the Proximity Domain <-> Memory Area mappings */
> -void __init
> -acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(const struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> +/* Neutral NUMA memory affinity init function for ACPI and DT */
> +int __init numa_update_node_memblks(nodeid_t node,
> +		paddr_t start, paddr_t size, bool hotplug)

Indentation.

>  {
> -	paddr_t start, end;
> -	unsigned pxm;
> -	nodeid_t node;
> +	paddr_t end = start + size;
>  	int i;
>  
> -	if (srat_disabled())
> -		return;
> -	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
> -		bad_srat();
> -		return;
> -	}
> -	if (!(ma->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_ENABLED))
> -		return;
> -
> -	start = ma->base_address;
> -	end = start + ma->length;
> -	/* Supplement the heuristics in l1tf_calculations(). */
> -	l1tf_safe_maddr = max(l1tf_safe_maddr, ROUNDUP(end, PAGE_SIZE));
> -
> -	if (num_node_memblks >= NR_NODE_MEMBLKS)
> -	{
> -		dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
> -                "Too many numa entry, try bigger NR_NODE_MEMBLKS \n");
> -		bad_srat();
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
> -	pxm = ma->proximity_domain;
> -	if (srat_rev < 2)
> -		pxm &= 0xff;
> -	node = setup_node(pxm);
> -	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> -		bad_srat();
> -		return;
> -	}
> -	/* It is fine to add this area to the nodes data it will be used later*/
> +	/* It is fine to add this area to the nodes data it will be used later */
>  	i = conflicting_memblks(start, end);
>  	if (i < 0)
>  		/* everything fine */;
>  	else if (memblk_nodeid[i] == node) {
> -		bool mismatch = !(ma->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE) !=
> -		                !test_bit(i, memblk_hotplug);
> +		bool mismatch = !hotplug != !test_bit(i, memblk_hotplug);
>  
> -		printk("%sSRAT: PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with itself (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
> -		       mismatch ? KERN_ERR : KERN_WARNING, pxm, start, end,
> +		printk("%sSRAT: NODE %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with itself (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",

Nit: Unlike PXM, which is an acronym, "node" doesn't want to be all upper
case.

Also did you check that the node <-> PXM association is known to a reader
of a log at this point in time?

> +		       mismatch ? KERN_ERR : KERN_WARNING, node, start, end,
>  		       node_memblk_range[i].start, node_memblk_range[i].end);
>  		if (mismatch) {
> -			bad_srat();
> -			return;
> +			return -1;
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		printk(KERN_ERR
> -		       "SRAT: PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
> -		       pxm, start, end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]),
> +		       "SRAT: NODE %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with NODE %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n",
> +		       node, start, end, memblk_nodeid[i],
>  		       node_memblk_range[i].start, node_memblk_range[i].end);
> -		bad_srat();
> -		return;
> +		return -1;

Please no -1 return values. Either a function means to return boolean,
in which case it should use bool / true / false, or it means to return
a proper errno-style error code.

> @@ -375,26 +349,69 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(const struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
>  			if (nd->end < end)
>  				nd->end = end;
>  
> -			/* Check whether this range contains memory for other nodes */
> -			if (!is_node_memory_continuous(node, nd->start, nd->end)) {
> -				bad_srat();
> -				return;
> -			}
> +			if (!is_node_memory_continuous(node, nd->start, nd->end))
> +				return -1;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	printk(KERN_INFO "SRAT: Node %u PXM %u %"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr"%s\n",
> -	       node, pxm, start, end,
> -	       ma->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE ? " (hotplug)" : "");
> +
> +	printk(KERN_INFO "SRAT: Node %u %"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr"%s\n",
> +	       node, start, end, hotplug ? " (hotplug)" : "");

Continuing from a comment further up: Here you remove an instance of
logging the node <-> PXM association.

>  	node_memblk_range[num_node_memblks].start = start;
>  	node_memblk_range[num_node_memblks].end = end;
>  	memblk_nodeid[num_node_memblks] = node;
> -	if (ma->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE) {
> +	if (hotplug) {
>  		__set_bit(num_node_memblks, memblk_hotplug);
>  		if (end > mem_hotplug_boundary())
>  			mem_hotplug_update_boundary(end);
>  	}
>  	num_node_memblks++;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* Callback for parsing of the Proximity Domain <-> Memory Area mappings */
> +void __init
> +acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(const struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> +{
> +	unsigned pxm;
> +	nodeid_t node;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (srat_disabled())
> +		return;
> +	if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
> +		bad_srat();
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	if (!(ma->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_ENABLED))
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* Supplement the heuristics in l1tf_calculations(). */
> +	l1tf_safe_maddr = max(l1tf_safe_maddr,
> +			ROUNDUP((ma->base_address + ma->length), PAGE_SIZE));

Indentation and unnecessary pair of parentheses.

> +	if (!numa_memblks_available())
> +	{

For code you touch, please try to bring it into consistent style. Here
the brace wants to move to the previous line, seeing that the file is
using Linux style.

> +		dprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
> +                "Too many numa entry, try bigger NR_NODE_MEMBLKS \n");

Here you want to fix indentation and ideally also format and grammar of
the actual log message.

> +		bad_srat();
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	pxm = ma->proximity_domain;
> +	if (srat_rev < 2)
> +		pxm &= 0xff;
> +	node = setup_node(pxm);
> +	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> +		bad_srat();
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = numa_update_node_memblks(node, ma->base_address, ma->length,
> +					ma->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE);

Indentation again.

Jan