Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Manual definition of Soft Reserved memory devices

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Manual definition of Soft Reserved memory devices
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:02:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jqKu2AFEoCPa7h-UQqzprkB1pcs9hKzu2BdQB6kRB3vQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <158489354353.1457606.8327903161927980740.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 5:28 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Changes since v1 [1]:
> - Kill the ifdef'ery in arch/x86/mm/numa.c (Rafael)
>
> - Add a dummy phys_to_target_node() for ARM64 (0day-robot)
>
> - Initialize ->child and ->sibling to NULL in the resource returned by
>   find_next_iomem_res() (Inspired by Tom's feedback even though it does
>   not set them like he suggested)
>
> - Collect Ard's Ack
>
> [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/158318759687.2216124.4684754859068906007.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
>
> ---
>
> My primary motivation is making the dax_kmem facility useful to
> shipping platforms that have performance differentiated memory, but
> may not have EFI-defined soft-reservations / HMAT (or
> non-EFI-ACPI-platform equivalent). I'm anticipating HMAT enabled
> platforms where the platform firmware policy for what is
> soft-reserved, or not, is not the policy the system owner would pick.
> I'd also highlight Joao's work [2] (see the TODO section) as an
> indication of the demand for custom carving memory resources and
> applying the device-dax memory management interface.
>
> Given the current dearth of systems that supply an ACPI HMAT table, and
> the utility of being able to manually define device-dax "hmem" instances
> via the efi_fake_mem= option, relax the requirements for creating these
> devices. Specifically, add an option (numa=nohmat) to optionally disable
> consideration of the HMAT and update efi_fake_mem= to behave like
> memmap=nn!ss in terms of delimiting device boundaries.
>
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200110190313.17144-1-joao.m.martins@oracle.com/
>
> With Ard's and Rafael's ack I'd feel ok taking this through the nvdimm
> tree, please holler if anything still needs some fixups.

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

for the whole series.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org