From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/HMAT: Fix the parsing of Cache Associativity and Write Policy
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:27:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h6_7AoYW5Syk=BUR656eW11A3GjA7uvmTA6ayByOaqBg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e4219c3-943a-e416-e5eb-723bed8c9383@intel.com>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 9:19 AM Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2019 4:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:04 AM Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/9/2019 6:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:03 AM Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In chapter 5.2.27.5, Table 5-147: Field "Cache Attributes" of
> >>>> ACPI 6.3 spec: 0 is "None", 1 is "Direct Mapped", 2 is "Complex Cache
> >>>> Indexing" for Cache Associativity; 0 is "None", 1 is "Write Back",
> >>>> 2 is "Write Through" for Write Policy.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I'm not sure what the connection between the above statement,
> >>> which is correct AFAICS, and the changes made by the patch is.
> >>>
> >>> Is that the *_OTHER symbol names are confusing or something deeper?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because in include/acpi/actbl1.h:
> >>
> >> #define ACPI_HMAT_CA_NONE (0)
> >>
> >> ACPI_HMAT_CA_NONE is 0, but in include/linux/node.h:
> >>
> >> enum cache_indexing {
> >> NODE_CACHE_DIRECT_MAP,
> >> NODE_CACHE_INDEXED,
> >> NODE_CACHE_OTHER,
> >> };
> >> NODE_CACHE_OTHER is 2, and for otner enum:
> >>
> >> case ACPI_HMAT_CA_DIRECT_MAPPED:
> >> tcache->cache_attrs.indexing = NODE_CACHE_DIRECT_MAP;
> >> break;
> >> case ACPI_HMAT_CA_COMPLEX_CACHE_INDEXING:
> >> tcache->cache_attrs.indexing = NODE_CACHE_INDEXED;
> >> break;
> >> in include/acpi/actbl1.h:
> >>
> >> #define ACPI_HMAT_CA_DIRECT_MAPPED (1)
> >> #define ACPI_HMAT_CA_COMPLEX_CACHE_INDEXING (2)
> >>
> >> but in include/linux/node.h:
> >>
> >> NODE_CACHE_DIRECT_MAP is 0, NODE_CACHE_INDEXED is 1. This is incorrect.
> >
> > Why is it incorrect?
>
> Sorry I paste the wrong pre-define.
>
> This is the incorrect line:
>
> case ACPI_HMAT_CA_DIRECT_MAPPED:
> tcache->cache_attrs.indexing = NODE_CACHE_DIRECT_MAP;
>
> ACPI_HMAT_CA_DIRECT_MAPPED is 1, NODE_CACHE_DIRECT_MAP is 0. That means
> if HMAT table input 1 for cache_attrs.indexing, kernel store 0 in
> cache_attrs.indexing. But in ACPI 6.3, 0 means "None". So for the whole
> switch codes:
This is a mapping between the ACPI-defined values and the generic ones
defined in the kernel. There is not rule I know of by which they must
be the same numbers. Or is there such a rule which I'm missing?
As long as cache_attrs.indexing is used consistently going forward,
the difference between the ACPI-defined numbers and its values
shouldn't matter, should it?
>
> switch ((attrs & ACPI_HMAT_CACHE_ASSOCIATIVITY) >> 8) {
> case ACPI_HMAT_CA_DIRECT_MAPPED(1):
> tcache->cache_attrs.indexing = NODE_CACHE_DIRECT_MAP(0);
> break;
> case ACPI_HMAT_CA_COMPLEX_CACHE_INDEXING(2):
> tcache->cache_attrs.indexing = NODE_CACHE_INDEXED(1);
> break;
> case ACPI_HMAT_CA_NONE(0):
> default:
> tcache->cache_attrs.indexing = NODE_CACHE_OTHER(2);
> break;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-10 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-02 7:03 [PATCH] ACPI/HMAT: Fix the parsing of Cache Associativity and Write Policy Tao Xu
2019-12-09 7:43 ` Tao Xu
2019-12-09 7:55 ` Greg KH
2019-12-09 8:38 ` Tao Xu
2019-12-09 10:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-12-10 1:04 ` Tao Xu
2019-12-10 8:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-12-10 8:19 ` Tao Xu
2019-12-10 8:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2019-12-10 13:18 ` Tao Xu
2019-12-11 3:04 ` Tao Xu
2019-12-11 3:37 ` Dan Williams
2019-12-11 4:27 ` Tao Xu
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='CAJZ5v0h6_7AoYW5Syk=BUR656eW11A3GjA7uvmTA6ayByOaqBg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tao3.xu@intel.com \
/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: link
Be 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).