From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] acpi, numa: reuse acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:48:37 +0800 Message-ID: <56A98185.4080202@huawei.com> References: <1453541967-3744-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1453541967-3744-13-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20160125102643.GF24726@rric.localdomain> <56A8606A.8080407@huawei.com> <20160127141847.GR24726@rric.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:58790 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965155AbcA1CtA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:49:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160127141847.GR24726@rric.localdomain> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Robert Richter Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Shannon Zhao , Steve Capper , Mark Rutland , Hanjun Guo On 2016/1/27 22:18, Robert Richter wrote: > On 27.01.16 14:15:06, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> On 2016/1/25 18:26, Robert Richter wrote: >>> On 23.01.16 17:39:27, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> From: Hanjun Guo >>>> >>>> After the cleanup for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(), >>>> it can be used for architetures both x86 and arm64, since >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not enabled for arm64, so no >>>> worry about that. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 42 ------------------------------- >>>> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 54 ---------------------------------------- >>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >>> This one reverts acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to the x86 version. >>> I rather would prefer the arm64 version for the generic code. We could >>> keep the x86 implementation until x86 maintainers agree to remove them >>> and use the generic one (implemented in a separate patch). >>> >>> Doing so we can move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() from the >>> beginning to generic code (used for arm64) and have this last patch to >>> remove the x86 version. >> I think the x86 version is the generic one, all the flags (ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE and >> etc) are defined in the ACPI spec, x86 just use all the flags because it support such features. >> For ARM64, firmware should be careful and represent the true platform configuration to >> OS, such as on ARM64, we can't set hotpluggable flag as the ARM64 arch don't support >> memory hot-plug yet (also the firmware don't support it too), if firmware do things right, >> it will be not worries for the kernel. > But you are removing all arm64 from your first patches. Why do you > introduce acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in the beginning to remove > it in the end again? I esp. like the arm64 version because of its > direct returns. So I still would like to see generic code for arm64 > from the beginning. Maybe have a copy of x86 initially and make > modifications for arm64 to it, or move missing code (hotplug, etc.) > from x86 to generic and remove x86 arch code with the last patch. OK, so that's the logic and ordering of formatting the patch set, it's easy to fix :) I will introduce the generic code for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in drivers/acpi/numa.c and mark it as __weak from the beginning, and move missing code from x86 to generic, then remove x86 one as you suggested, is that OK? Thanks Hanjun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161261AbcA1CtD (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:49:03 -0500 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:58790 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965155AbcA1CtA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:49:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] acpi, numa: reuse acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() To: Robert Richter References: <1453541967-3744-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1453541967-3744-13-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20160125102643.GF24726@rric.localdomain> <56A8606A.8080407@huawei.com> <20160127141847.GR24726@rric.localdomain> CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , , , , Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Shannon Zhao , "Steve Capper" , Mark Rutland , "Hanjun Guo" From: Hanjun Guo Message-ID: <56A98185.4080202@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:48:37 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160127141847.GR24726@rric.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.17.188] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.56A98190.00B6,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: e7658b7f86a09057a57d95644974f74f Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016/1/27 22:18, Robert Richter wrote: > On 27.01.16 14:15:06, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> On 2016/1/25 18:26, Robert Richter wrote: >>> On 23.01.16 17:39:27, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> From: Hanjun Guo >>>> >>>> After the cleanup for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(), >>>> it can be used for architetures both x86 and arm64, since >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not enabled for arm64, so no >>>> worry about that. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 42 ------------------------------- >>>> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 54 ---------------------------------------- >>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >>> This one reverts acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to the x86 version. >>> I rather would prefer the arm64 version for the generic code. We could >>> keep the x86 implementation until x86 maintainers agree to remove them >>> and use the generic one (implemented in a separate patch). >>> >>> Doing so we can move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() from the >>> beginning to generic code (used for arm64) and have this last patch to >>> remove the x86 version. >> I think the x86 version is the generic one, all the flags (ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE and >> etc) are defined in the ACPI spec, x86 just use all the flags because it support such features. >> For ARM64, firmware should be careful and represent the true platform configuration to >> OS, such as on ARM64, we can't set hotpluggable flag as the ARM64 arch don't support >> memory hot-plug yet (also the firmware don't support it too), if firmware do things right, >> it will be not worries for the kernel. > But you are removing all arm64 from your first patches. Why do you > introduce acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in the beginning to remove > it in the end again? I esp. like the arm64 version because of its > direct returns. So I still would like to see generic code for arm64 > from the beginning. Maybe have a copy of x86 initially and make > modifications for arm64 to it, or move missing code (hotplug, etc.) > from x86 to generic and remove x86 arch code with the last patch. OK, so that's the logic and ordering of formatting the patch set, it's easy to fix :) I will introduce the generic code for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in drivers/acpi/numa.c and mark it as __weak from the beginning, and move missing code from x86 to generic, then remove x86 one as you suggested, is that OK? Thanks Hanjun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: guohanjun@huawei.com (Hanjun Guo) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:48:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v3 12/12] acpi, numa: reuse acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() In-Reply-To: <20160127141847.GR24726@rric.localdomain> References: <1453541967-3744-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1453541967-3744-13-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20160125102643.GF24726@rric.localdomain> <56A8606A.8080407@huawei.com> <20160127141847.GR24726@rric.localdomain> Message-ID: <56A98185.4080202@huawei.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2016/1/27 22:18, Robert Richter wrote: > On 27.01.16 14:15:06, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> On 2016/1/25 18:26, Robert Richter wrote: >>> On 23.01.16 17:39:27, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> From: Hanjun Guo >>>> >>>> After the cleanup for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(), >>>> it can be used for architetures both x86 and arm64, since >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not enabled for arm64, so no >>>> worry about that. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 42 ------------------------------- >>>> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 54 ---------------------------------------- >>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >>> This one reverts acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to the x86 version. >>> I rather would prefer the arm64 version for the generic code. We could >>> keep the x86 implementation until x86 maintainers agree to remove them >>> and use the generic one (implemented in a separate patch). >>> >>> Doing so we can move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() from the >>> beginning to generic code (used for arm64) and have this last patch to >>> remove the x86 version. >> I think the x86 version is the generic one, all the flags (ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE and >> etc) are defined in the ACPI spec, x86 just use all the flags because it support such features. >> For ARM64, firmware should be careful and represent the true platform configuration to >> OS, such as on ARM64, we can't set hotpluggable flag as the ARM64 arch don't support >> memory hot-plug yet (also the firmware don't support it too), if firmware do things right, >> it will be not worries for the kernel. > But you are removing all arm64 from your first patches. Why do you > introduce acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in the beginning to remove > it in the end again? I esp. like the arm64 version because of its > direct returns. So I still would like to see generic code for arm64 > from the beginning. Maybe have a copy of x86 initially and make > modifications for arm64 to it, or move missing code (hotplug, etc.) > from x86 to generic and remove x86 arch code with the last patch. OK, so that's the logic and ordering of formatting the patch set, it's easy to fix :) I will introduce the generic code for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in drivers/acpi/numa.c and mark it as __weak from the beginning, and move missing code from x86 to generic, then remove x86 one as you suggested, is that OK? Thanks Hanjun