From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>, "Keith Busch" <keith.busch@intel.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linuxarm@huawei.com, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Subject: [PATCH 0/4 V3] ACPI: Support generic initiator proximity domains Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 01:49:03 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190415174907.102307-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> (raw) Changes since RFC V2. * RFC dropped as now we have x86 support, so the lack of guards in in the ACPI code etc should now be fine. * Added x86 support. Note this has only been tested on QEMU as I don't have a convenient x86 NUMA machine to play with. Note that this fitted together rather differently form arm64 so I'm particularly interested in feedback on the two solutions. Since RFC V1. * Fix incorrect interpretation of the ACPI entry noted by Keith Busch * Use the acpica headers definitions that are now in mmotm. It's worth noting that, to safely put a given device in a GI node, may require changes to the existing drivers as it's not unusual to assume you have local memory or processor core. There may be futher constraints not yet covered by this patch. Original cover letter... ACPI 6.3 introduced a new entity that can be part of a NUMA proximity domain. It may share such a domain with the existing options (memory, cpu etc) but it may also exist on it's own. The intent is to allow the description of the NUMA properties (particulary via HMAT) of accelerators and other initiators of memory activity that are not the host processor running the operating system. This patch set introduces 'just enough' to make them work for arm64 and x86. It should be trivial to support other architectures, I just don't suitable NUMA systems readily available to test. There are a few quirks that need to be considered. 1. Fall back nodes ****************** As pre ACPI 6.3 supporting operating systems do not have Generic Initiator Proximity Domains it is possible to specify, via _PXM in DSDT that another device is part of such a GI only node. This currently blows up spectacularly. Whilst we can obviously 'now' protect against such a situation (see the related thread on PCI _PXM support and the threadripper board identified there as also falling into the problem of using non existent nodes https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10723311/ ), there is no way to be sure we will never have legacy OSes that are not protected against this. It would also be 'non ideal' to fallback to a default node as there may be a better (non GI) node to pick if GI nodes aren't available. The work around is that we also have a new system wide OSC bit that allows an operating system to 'annouce' that it supports Generic Initiators. This allows, the firmware to us DSDT magic to 'move' devices between the nodes dependent on whether our new nodes are there or not. 2. New ways of assigning a proximity domain for devices ******************************************************* Until now, the only way firmware could indicate that a particular device (outside the 'special' set of cpus etc) was to be found in a particular Proximity Domain by the use of _PXM in DSDT. That is equally valid with GI domains, but we have new options. The SRAT affinity structure includes a handle (ACPI or PCI) to identify devices with the system and specify their proximity domain that way. If both _PXM and this are provided, they should give the same answer. For now this patch set completely ignores that feature as we don't need it to start the discussion. It will form a follow up set at some point (if no one else fancies doing it). Jonathan Cameron (4): ACPI: Support Generic Initiator only domains arm64: Support Generic Initiator only domains x86: Support Generic Initiator only proximity domains ACPI: Let ACPI know we support Generic Initiator Affinity Structures arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 8 +++++ arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h | 2 ++ arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 1 + arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 14 ++++++++ drivers/acpi/bus.c | 1 + drivers/acpi/numa.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- drivers/base/node.c | 3 ++ include/asm-generic/topology.h | 3 ++ include/linux/acpi.h | 1 + include/linux/nodemask.h | 1 + include/linux/topology.h | 7 ++++ 11 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.19.1
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> To: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>, "Keith Busch" <keith.busch@intel.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linuxarm@huawei.com, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Subject: [PATCH 0/4 V3] ACPI: Support generic initiator proximity domains Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 01:49:03 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190415174907.102307-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20190415174903.pBvbLZtIshcY78ooEgzMug2x5eMm9N3se1r8uBMHUQs@z> (raw) Changes since RFC V2. * RFC dropped as now we have x86 support, so the lack of guards in in the ACPI code etc should now be fine. * Added x86 support. Note this has only been tested on QEMU as I don't have a convenient x86 NUMA machine to play with. Note that this fitted together rather differently form arm64 so I'm particularly interested in feedback on the two solutions. Since RFC V1. * Fix incorrect interpretation of the ACPI entry noted by Keith Busch * Use the acpica headers definitions that are now in mmotm. It's worth noting that, to safely put a given device in a GI node, may require changes to the existing drivers as it's not unusual to assume you have local memory or processor core. There may be futher constraints not yet covered by this patch. Original cover letter... ACPI 6.3 introduced a new entity that can be part of a NUMA proximity domain. It may share such a domain with the existing options (memory, cpu etc) but it may also exist on it's own. The intent is to allow the description of the NUMA properties (particulary via HMAT) of accelerators and other initiators of memory activity that are not the host processor running the operating system. This patch set introduces 'just enough' to make them work for arm64 and x86. It should be trivial to support other architectures, I just don't suitable NUMA systems readily available to test. There are a few quirks that need to be considered. 1. Fall back nodes ****************** As pre ACPI 6.3 supporting operating systems do not have Generic Initiator Proximity Domains it is possible to specify, via _PXM in DSDT that another device is part of such a GI only node. This currently blows up spectacularly. Whilst we can obviously 'now' protect against such a situation (see the related thread on PCI _PXM support and the threadripper board identified there as also falling into the problem of using non existent nodes https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10723311/ ), there is no way to be sure we will never have legacy OSes that are not protected against this. It would also be 'non ideal' to fallback to a default node as there may be a better (non GI) node to pick if GI nodes aren't available. The work around is that we also have a new system wide OSC bit that allows an operating system to 'annouce' that it supports Generic Initiators. This allows, the firmware to us DSDT magic to 'move' devices between the nodes dependent on whether our new nodes are there or not. 2. New ways of assigning a proximity domain for devices ******************************************************* Until now, the only way firmware could indicate that a particular device (outside the 'special' set of cpus etc) was to be found in a particular Proximity Domain by the use of _PXM in DSDT. That is equally valid with GI domains, but we have new options. The SRAT affinity structure includes a handle (ACPI or PCI) to identify devices with the system and specify their proximity domain that way. If both _PXM and this are provided, they should give the same answer. For now this patch set completely ignores that feature as we don't need it to start the discussion. It will form a follow up set at some point (if no one else fancies doing it). Jonathan Cameron (4): ACPI: Support Generic Initiator only domains arm64: Support Generic Initiator only domains x86: Support Generic Initiator only proximity domains ACPI: Let ACPI know we support Generic Initiator Affinity Structures arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 8 +++++ arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h | 2 ++ arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 1 + arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 14 ++++++++ drivers/acpi/bus.c | 1 + drivers/acpi/numa.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- drivers/base/node.c | 3 ++ include/asm-generic/topology.h | 3 ++ include/linux/acpi.h | 1 + include/linux/nodemask.h | 1 + include/linux/topology.h | 7 ++++ 11 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.19.1
next reply other threads:[~2019-04-15 17:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-04-15 17:49 Jonathan Cameron [this message] 2019-04-15 17:49 ` [PATCH 0/4 V3] ACPI: Support generic initiator proximity domains Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` [PATCH 1/4 V3] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator only domains Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` [PATCH 2/4 V3] arm64: " Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` [PATCH 3/4 V3] x86: Support Generic Initiator only proximity domains Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` [PATCH 4/4 V3] ACPI: Let ACPI know we support Generic Initiator Affinity Structures Jonathan Cameron 2019-04-15 17:49 ` Jonathan Cameron 2019-05-28 11:31 ` [PATCH 0/4 V3] ACPI: Support generic initiator proximity domains Jonathan Cameron 2019-06-25 9:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190415174907.102307-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \ --to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \ --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \ --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).