From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC60FA3728 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:07:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EC820659 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:07:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389696AbfJPMHL (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:07:11 -0400 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:44248 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731203AbfJPMHK (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:07:10 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9347664D55B01082BBF5; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:07:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.74.191.121) by DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:07:01 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware To: Greg KH CC: Peter Zijlstra , Michal Hocko , Robin Murphy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , , References: <6cc94f9b-0d79-93a8-5ec2-4f6c21639268@huawei.com> <20191011111539.GX2311@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <7fad58d6-5126-e8b8-a7d8-a91814da53ba@huawei.com> <20191012074014.GA2037204@kroah.com> <1e1ec851-b5e7-8f35-a627-4c12ca9c2d3c@huawei.com> <20191012104001.GA2052933@kroah.com> <20191012104742.GA2053473@kroah.com> <82000bc8-6912-205b-0251-25b9cc430973@huawei.com> <20191014092509.GA3050088@kroah.com> <34450edf-2249-ee7a-fc83-f4a923f75989@huawei.com> <20191015165833.GB1067208@kroah.com> From: Yunsheng Lin Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 20:07:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191015165833.GB1067208@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.74.191.121] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019/10/16 0:58, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 06:40:29PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2019/10/14 17:25, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:00:46PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>> On 2019/10/12 18:47, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:40:01PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:47:56PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019/10/12 15:40, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:17:26PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>>>>>>> add pci and acpi maintainer >>>>>>>>> cc linux-pci@vger.kernel.org and linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019/10/11 19:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:27:54AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> But I failed to see why the above is related to making node_to_cpumask_map() >>>>>>>>>>> NUMA_NO_NODE aware? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your initial bug is for hns3, which is a PCI device, which really _MUST_ >>>>>>>>>> have a node assigned. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It not having one, is a straight up bug. We must not silently accept >>>>>>>>>> NO_NODE there, ever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suppose you mean reporting a lack of affinity when the node of a pcie >>>>>>>>> device is not set by "not silently accept NO_NODE". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the firmware of a pci device does not provide the node information, >>>>>>>> then yes, warn about that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Greg has asked about in [1]: >>>>>>>>> what is a user to do when the user sees the kernel reporting that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We may tell user to contact their vendor for info or updates about >>>>>>>>> that when they do not know about their system well enough, but their >>>>>>>>> vendor may get away with this by quoting ACPI spec as the spec >>>>>>>>> considering this optional. Should the user believe this is indeed a >>>>>>>>> fw bug or a misreport from the kernel? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Say it is a firmware bug, if it is a firmware bug, that's simple. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If this kind of reporting is common pratice and will not cause any >>>>>>>>> misunderstanding, then maybe we can report that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, please do so, that's the only way those boxes are ever going to get >>>>>>>> fixed. And go add the test to the "firmware testing" tool that is based >>>>>>>> on Linux that Intel has somewhere, to give vendors a chance to fix this >>>>>>>> before they ship hardware. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a big deal, we warn of other hardware bugs all the >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, thanks for clarifying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will send a patch to catch the case when a pcie device without numa node >>>>>>> being set and warn about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe use dev->bus to verify if it is a pci device? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, do that in the pci bus core code itself, when creating the devices >>>>>> as that is when you know, or do not know, the numa node, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> This can't be in the driver core only, as each bus type will have a >>>>>> different way of determining what the node the device is on. For some >>>>>> reason, I thought the PCI core code already does this, right? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, pci_irq_get_node(), which NO ONE CALLS! I should go delete that >>>>> thing... >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, it looks like the pci core code does call set_dev_node() based >>>>> on the PCI bridge, so if that is set up properly, all should be fine. >>>>> >>>>> If not, well, you have buggy firmware and you need to warn about that at >>>>> the time you are creating the bridge. Look at the call to >>>>> pcibus_to_node() in pci_register_host_bridge(). >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing out the specific function. >>>> Maybe we do not need to warn about the case when the device has a parent, >>>> because we must have warned about the parent if the device has a parent >>>> and the parent also has a node of NO_NODE, so do not need to warn the child >>>> device anymore? like blew: >>>> >>>> @@ -932,6 +932,10 @@ static int pci_register_host_bridge(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) >>>> list_add_tail(&bus->node, &pci_root_buses); >>>> up_write(&pci_bus_sem); >>>> >>>> + if (nr_node_ids > 1 && !parent && >>> >>> Why do you need to check this? If you have a parent, it's your node >>> should be set, if not, that's an error, right? >> >> If the device has parent and the parent device also has a node of >> NUMA_NO_NODE, then maybe we have warned about the parent device, so >> we do not have to warn about the child device? > > But it's a PCI bridge, if it is not set properly, that needs to be fixed > otherwise the PCI devices attached to it have no hope of working > properly. You may be right, thanks. If it's a root PCI bridge and it does have a parent device, but the parent device is not a pcie device and it's node is NUMA_NO_NODE, then we will miss warning about this case. > >> In pci_register_host_bridge(): >> >> if (!parent) >> set_dev_node(bus->bridge, pcibus_to_node(bus)); >> >> The above only set the node of the bridge device to the node of bus if >> the bridge device does not have a parent. > > Odd, what happens to devices behind another bridge today? Are their > nodes set properly today? Is the node supposed to be the same as the > parent bridge? It seems only the root bridge is added in pci_register_host_bridge(), and other bridges under the root bridge is added in pci_alloc_child_bus(). And in pci_alloc_child_bus(), the child bus device is setup with proper parent, so the pcie device under the child bus should have the same node as the parent bridge when device_add() is called, which will set the node to its parent's node when the child device' node is NUMA_NO_NODE. Do not have a system with multi bridges at hand to debug it, so I may be wrong about above. > >>>> + dev_to_node(bus->bridge) == NUMA_NO_NODE) >>>> + dev_err(bus->bridge, FW_BUG "No node assigned on NUMA capable HW. Please contact your vendor for updates.\n"); >>>> + >>>> return 0; >>> >>> Who set that bus->bridge node to NUMA_NO_NODE? >> >> It seems x86 and arm64 may have different implemention of >> pcibus_to_node(): >> >> For arm64: >> int pcibus_to_node(struct pci_bus *bus) >> { >> return dev_to_node(&bus->dev); >> } >> >> And the node of bus is set in: >> int pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) >> { >> if (!acpi_disabled) { >> struct pci_config_window *cfg = bridge->bus->sysdata; >> struct acpi_device *adev = to_acpi_device(cfg->parent); >> struct device *bus_dev = &bridge->bus->dev; >> >> ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&bridge->dev, adev); >> set_dev_node(bus_dev, acpi_get_node(acpi_device_handle(adev))); >> } >> >> return 0; >> } >> >> acpi_get_node() may return NUMA_NO_NODE in pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(), >> which will set the node of bus_dev to NUMA_NO_NODE >> >> >> x86: >> static inline int __pcibus_to_node(const struct pci_bus *bus) >> { >> const struct pci_sysdata *sd = bus->sysdata; >> >> return sd->node; >> } >> >> And the node of bus is set in pci_acpi_scan_root(), which uses >> pci_acpi_root_get_node() get the node of a bus. And it also may return >> NUMA_NO_NODE. > > Fixing that will be good :)> >>> If that is set, the firmware is broken, as you say, but you need to tell >>> the user what firmware is broken. >> >> Maybe mentioning the BIOS in log? >> dev_err(bus->bridge, FW_BUG "No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates.\n"); > > That's a good start. Try running it on your machines (big and small) > and see what happens. There is no fw bug log output as above when using newer bios( which has provided the device node through ACPI) in my machine. > >>> Try something like this out and see what happens on your machine that >>> had things "broken". What does it say? >> >> Does not have a older bios right now. >> But always returning NUMA_NO_NODE by below patch: >> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c >> @@ -484,6 +484,7 @@ int acpi_get_node(acpi_handle handle) >> >> pxm = acpi_get_pxm(handle); >> >> - return acpi_map_pxm_to_node(pxm); >> + return -1; >> + //return acpi_map_pxm_to_node(pxm); >> >> it gives the blow warning in my machine: >> >> [ 16.126136] pci0000:00: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 17.733831] pci0000:7b: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 18.020924] pci0000:7a: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 18.552832] pci0000:78: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 19.514948] pci0000:7c: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 20.652990] pci0000:74: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 22.573200] pci0000:80: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 23.225355] pci0000:bb: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 23.514040] pci0000:ba: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 24.050107] pci0000:b8: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 25.017491] pci0000:bc: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. >> [ 25.557974] pci0000:b4: [Firmware Bug]: No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates. > > And can you fix your bios? If you can't then why are we going to warn > about this? Yes, our new bios has fixed that.