* [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
@ 2014-09-09 20:09 Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-09-15 5:05 ` Michael Ellerman
2014-09-16 19:42 ` Nathan Fontenot
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2014-09-09 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev
We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN
and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming
from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable
reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the
problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa=
command-line parameter.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not
sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
e.g. base its process migration decisions on it.
Default is on.
+ topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA]
+ Format: {off | debug}
+ Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or
+ emit more information (debug) when the
+ hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an
+ LPAR.
+
tp720= [HW,PS2]
tpm_suspend_pcr=[HW,TPM]
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
@@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
}
early_param("numa", early_numa);
+static int topology_updates_enabled = 1;
+static int topology_updates_debug = 0;
+
+static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p)
+{
+ if (!p)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (strstr(p, "off")) {
+ printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n");
+ topology_updates_enabled = 0;
+ }
+
+ if (strstr(p, "debug")) {
+ printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n");
+ topology_updates_debug = 1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
/*
* Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for
@@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
struct device *dev;
int weight, new_nid, i = 0;
+ if (!topology_updates_enabled)
+ return 0;
+
weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask);
if (!weight)
return 0;
@@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
*
* And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating.
*/
+
+ if (topology_updates_debug) {
+ char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
+ cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
+ cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));
+
+ if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) {
+ for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) {
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d "
+ "to %d\n", ud->cpu,
+ ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid);
+ }
+ }
+ kfree(buf);
+ }
+
if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus))
goto out;
@@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = {
static int topology_update_init(void)
{
- start_topology_update();
- proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
+ if (topology_updates_enabled) {
+ start_topology_update();
+ proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
+ }
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
2014-09-09 20:09 [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates Nishanth Aravamudan
@ 2014-09-15 5:05 ` Michael Ellerman
2014-09-15 23:54 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-09-16 19:42 ` Nathan Fontenot
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2014-09-15 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nishanth Aravamudan; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 13:09 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN
> and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming
> from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable
> reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the
> problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa=
> command-line parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not
> sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> e.g. base its process migration decisions on it.
> Default is on.
>
> + topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA]
> + Format: {off | debug}
> + Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or
> + emit more information (debug) when the
> + hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an
> + LPAR.
Boot-time parameters are kind of a pain, not least because they require a reboot
to activate.
Does it really need to be a boot param, or could it be a debugfs or sysctl
flag? ie. do we need to disable it immediately at boot or would it be OK if it
was /etc/rc.local or similar that turned it off ?
It looks like arch_update_cpu_topology() is called quite early, from
init_sched_domains(), but in that case I don't see how
cpu_associativity_changes_mask can be non-zero, ie. we'll never do any work
via that path.
As far as the debug goes, we could just use pr_debug() with
CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, it's not quite as easy to enable as a kernel parameter
but for the odd bit of debugging it should be fine.
I guess the downside there is you have to do some work before you know if
you're printing anything out. More below ...
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
> }
> early_param("numa", early_numa);
>
> +static int topology_updates_enabled = 1;
> +static int topology_updates_debug = 0;
> +
> +static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p)
> +{
> + if (!p)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (strstr(p, "off")) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n");
> + topology_updates_enabled = 0;
> + }
Can you add a:
#define pr_fmt(fmt) "numa: " fmt
At the top of the file and then use pr_xxx() for these?
> + if (strstr(p, "debug")) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n");
> + topology_updates_debug = 1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates);
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> /*
> * Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for
> @@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> struct device *dev;
> int weight, new_nid, i = 0;
>
> + if (!topology_updates_enabled)
> + return 0;
> +
> weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask);
> if (!weight)
> return 0;
> @@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> *
> * And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating.
> */
The comment should stay attached to the check below of updated_cpus, ie. this
block should preceed the comment.
> + if (topology_updates_debug) {
> + char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
> + cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
> + cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));
Do we really need to print the cpumask? The same information is available below
right, just in a more verbose form?
Assuming we can skip that we can just use pr_debug() for these I think and drop
the debug flag. Or is this a super hot-path that I'm not aware of?
> + if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) {
> + for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) {
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d "
> + "to %d\n", ud->cpu,
> + ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid);
> + }
> + }
> + kfree(buf);
> + }
> +
> if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus))
> goto out;
>
> @@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = {
>
> static int topology_update_init(void)
> {
> - start_topology_update();
> - proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> + if (topology_updates_enabled) {
> + start_topology_update();
> + proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> + }
It was already broken, but can you fix the (lack of) error handling here please?
>
> return 0;
> }
cheers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
2014-09-15 5:05 ` Michael Ellerman
@ 2014-09-15 23:54 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-09-17 3:38 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2014-09-15 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Ellerman; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev
Hi Michael,
On 15.09.2014 [15:05:36 +1000], Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 13:09 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN
> > and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming
> > from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable
> > reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the
> > problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa=
> > command-line parameter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not
> > sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> > e.g. base its process migration decisions on it.
> > Default is on.
> >
> > + topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA]
> > + Format: {off | debug}
> > + Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or
> > + emit more information (debug) when the
> > + hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an
> > + LPAR.
>
> Boot-time parameters are kind of a pain, not least because they
> require a reboot to activate.
Thanks for the review, this is a good point. In the case we're
hitting, we're actually crashing at boot because of possibly dodgy
firmware data.
> Does it really need to be a boot param, or could it be a debugfs or
> sysctl flag? ie. do we need to disable it immediately at boot or would
> it be OK if it was /etc/rc.local or similar that turned it off ?
We need it off at boot, potentially. An LPAR does not indicate that it
will or will not respond to the events in any synchronous fashion, so
the hypervisor is free to send them to us whenever.
> It looks like arch_update_cpu_topology() is called quite early, from
> init_sched_domains(), but in that case I don't see how
> cpu_associativity_changes_mask can be non-zero, ie. we'll never do any
> work via that path.
Correct, that path is probably fine. But we can get these hypervisor
events fairly early in boot.
> As far as the debug goes, we could just use pr_debug() with
> CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, it's not quite as easy to enable as a kernel
> parameter but for the odd bit of debugging it should be fine.
That's a good point, I wonder with that mechanism if we should perhaps
extend/remove other static debugging methods in favor of that (e.g.,
numa=debug)?
> I guess the downside there is you have to do some work before you know
> if you're printing anything out. More below ...
>
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
> > }
> > early_param("numa", early_numa);
> >
> > +static int topology_updates_enabled = 1;
> > +static int topology_updates_debug = 0;
> > +
> > +static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p)
> > +{
> > + if (!p)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (strstr(p, "off")) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n");
> > + topology_updates_enabled = 0;
> > + }
>
> Can you add a:
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) "numa: " fmt
>
> At the top of the file and then use pr_xxx() for these?
Yes.
> > + if (strstr(p, "debug")) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n");
> > + topology_updates_debug = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates);
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> > /*
> > * Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for
> > @@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > struct device *dev;
> > int weight, new_nid, i = 0;
> >
> > + if (!topology_updates_enabled)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask);
> > if (!weight)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > *
> > * And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating.
> > */
>
> The comment should stay attached to the check below of updated_cpus, ie. this
> block should preceed the comment.
Yep.
> > + if (topology_updates_debug) {
> > + char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
> > + cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));
>
> Do we really need to print the cpumask? The same information is
> available below right, just in a more verbose form?
Yes, sorry, this is a "living" patch, and I haven't fully cleaned it up.
Will remove the cpumask bodge in v2.
> Assuming we can skip that we can just use pr_debug() for these I think
> and drop the debug flag. Or is this a super hot-path that I'm not
> aware of?
Not super hot, but when it breaks, your LPAR is unusable.
> > + if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) {
> > + for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) {
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d "
> > + "to %d\n", ud->cpu,
> > + ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + kfree(buf);
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus))
> > goto out;
> >
> > @@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = {
> >
> > static int topology_update_init(void)
> > {
> > - start_topology_update();
> > - proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> > + if (topology_updates_enabled) {
> > + start_topology_update();
> > + proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> > + }
>
> It was already broken, but can you fix the (lack of) error handling
> here please?
Yep, will make it the first patch in the series.
-Nish
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
2014-09-09 20:09 [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-09-15 5:05 ` Michael Ellerman
@ 2014-09-16 19:42 ` Nathan Fontenot
2014-09-16 20:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Fontenot @ 2014-09-16 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nishanth Aravamudan, Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Paul Mackerras
On 09/09/2014 03:09 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN
> and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming
> from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable
> reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the
> problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa=
> command-line parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not
> sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> e.g. base its process migration decisions on it.
> Default is on.
>
> + topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA]
> + Format: {off | debug}
> + Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or
> + emit more information (debug) when the
> + hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an
> + LPAR.
> +
> tp720= [HW,PS2]
>
> tpm_suspend_pcr=[HW,TPM]
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
> }
> early_param("numa", early_numa);
>
> +static int topology_updates_enabled = 1;
> +static int topology_updates_debug = 0;
> +
> +static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p)
> +{
> + if (!p)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (strstr(p, "off")) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n");
> + topology_updates_enabled = 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (strstr(p, "debug")) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n");
> + topology_updates_debug = 1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates);
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> /*
> * Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for
> @@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> struct device *dev;
> int weight, new_nid, i = 0;
>
> + if (!topology_updates_enabled)
> + return 0;
> +
> weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask);
> if (!weight)
> return 0;
> @@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> *
> * And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating.
> */
> +
> + if (topology_updates_debug) {
> + char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
> + cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
> + cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));
> +
> + if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) {
> + for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) {
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d "
> + "to %d\n", ud->cpu,
> + ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid);
> + }
> + }
> + kfree(buf);
> + }
> +
> if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus))
> goto out;
>
> @@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = {
>
> static int topology_update_init(void)
> {
> - start_topology_update();
> - proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> + if (topology_updates_enabled) {
> + start_topology_update();
> + proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> + }
>
Is there any reason you would want to enable topology updates at some
later point?
If so you could still create the /proc file and update it to set
topology_updates_enabled appropriately in start_topology_update()
and stop_topology_update().
-Nathan
> return 0;
> }
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
2014-09-16 19:42 ` Nathan Fontenot
@ 2014-09-16 20:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Aravamudan @ 2014-09-16 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Fontenot; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev
On 16.09.2014 [14:42:20 -0500], Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>
>
> On 09/09/2014 03:09 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > We have hit a few customer issues with the topology update code (VPHN
> > and PRRN). It would be nice to be able to debug the notifications coming
> > from the hypervisor in both cases to the LPAR, as well as to disable
> > reacting to the notifications, to narrow down the source of the
> > problems. Add a basic level of such functionality, similar to the numa=
> > command-line parameter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > This is pretty rough, but has been useful in the field already. I'm not
> > sure if more information would be useful than this basic amount.
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 5ae8608ca9f5..6e3b9e3a2ab4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -3370,6 +3370,13 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> > e.g. base its process migration decisions on it.
> > Default is on.
> >
> > + topology_updates= [KNL, PPC, NUMA]
> > + Format: {off | debug}
> > + Specify if the kernel should ignore (off) or
> > + emit more information (debug) when the
> > + hypervisor sends NUMA topology updates to an
> > + LPAR.
> > +
> > tp720= [HW,PS2]
> >
> > tpm_suspend_pcr=[HW,TPM]
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index d7737a542fd7..72c5ad313cbe 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -1160,6 +1160,28 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
> > }
> > early_param("numa", early_numa);
> >
> > +static int topology_updates_enabled = 1;
> > +static int topology_updates_debug = 0;
> > +
> > +static int __init early_topology_updates(char *p)
> > +{
> > + if (!p)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (strstr(p, "off")) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Disabling topology updates\n");
> > + topology_updates_enabled = 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (strstr(p, "debug")) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling topology updates debug\n");
> > + topology_updates_debug = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("topology_updates", early_topology_updates);
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> > /*
> > * Find the node associated with a hot added memory section for
> > @@ -1546,6 +1568,9 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > struct device *dev;
> > int weight, new_nid, i = 0;
> >
> > + if (!topology_updates_enabled)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > weight = cpumask_weight(&cpu_associativity_changes_mask);
> > if (!weight)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -1610,6 +1635,25 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > *
> > * And for the similar reason, we will skip all the following updating.
> > */
> > +
> > + if (topology_updates_debug) {
> > + char *buf = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS*5, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + cpumask_scnprintf(buf, NR_CPUS*5, &updated_cpus);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "Topology update for the following CPUs:\n");
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG " %s\n", buf);
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) = %u\n",
> > + cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus));
> > +
> > + if (cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus)) {
> > + for (ud = &updates[0]; ud; ud = ud->next) {
> > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "cpu %d moving from node %d "
> > + "to %d\n", ud->cpu,
> > + ud->old_nid, ud->new_nid);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + kfree(buf);
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!cpumask_weight(&updated_cpus))
> > goto out;
> >
> > @@ -1807,8 +1851,10 @@ static const struct file_operations topology_ops = {
> >
> > static int topology_update_init(void)
> > {
> > - start_topology_update();
> > - proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> > + if (topology_updates_enabled) {
> > + start_topology_update();
> > + proc_create("powerpc/topology_updates", 0644, NULL, &topology_ops);
> > + }
> >
>
> Is there any reason you would want to enable topology updates at some
> later point?
>
> If so you could still create the /proc file and update it to set
> topology_updates_enabled appropriately in start_topology_update()
> and stop_topology_update().
Oh, that's a good point! I'll adjust the patch accordingly (disable at
boot, leave the run-time twiddle).
-Nish
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates
2014-09-15 23:54 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
@ 2014-09-17 3:38 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2014-09-17 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nishanth Aravamudan; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 16:54 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 [15:05:36 +1000], Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 13:09 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Does it really need to be a boot param, or could it be a debugfs or
> > sysctl flag? ie. do we need to disable it immediately at boot or would
> > it be OK if it was /etc/rc.local or similar that turned it off ?
>
> We need it off at boot, potentially. An LPAR does not indicate that it
> will or will not respond to the events in any synchronous fashion, so
> the hypervisor is free to send them to us whenever.
OK. I guess we're stuck with a boot time parameter for on/off then.
> > As far as the debug goes, we could just use pr_debug() with
> > CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, it's not quite as easy to enable as a kernel
> > parameter but for the odd bit of debugging it should be fine.
>
> That's a good point, I wonder with that mechanism if we should perhaps
> extend/remove other static debugging methods in favor of that (e.g.,
> numa=debug)?
Yes definitely.
It's slightly more arcane to enable, ie. to turn on dynamic debugging in numa.c
at boot your command line needs:
dyndbg="file numa.c +p"
But that's fine unless it's an option you expect users to be using regularly
which none of these are.
cheers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-17 3:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-09 20:09 [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: add ability to disable and debug topology updates Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-09-15 5:05 ` Michael Ellerman
2014-09-15 23:54 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-09-17 3:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2014-09-16 19:42 ` Nathan Fontenot
2014-09-16 20:10 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.