[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [XEN RFC PATCH 32/40] xen/x86: make acpi_scan_nodes to be neutral
Hi Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> > Sent: 2021年8月27日 22:09 > To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx; jbeulich@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [XEN RFC PATCH 32/40] xen/x86: make acpi_scan_nodes to be > neutral > > Hi Wei, > > On 11/08/2021 11:24, Wei Chen wrote: > > The code in acpi_scan_nodes can be reused for device tree based > > NUMA. So we rename acpi_scan_nodes to numa_scan_nodes for a neutral > > function name. As acpi_numa variable is available in ACPU based NUMA > > system only, we use CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA to protect it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > xen/arch/x86/srat.c | 4 +++- > > xen/common/numa.c | 2 +- > > xen/include/asm-x86/acpi.h | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c > > index dcebc7adec..3d4d90a622 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/srat.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/srat.c > > @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ void __init srat_parse_regions(u64 addr) > > } > > > > /* Use the information discovered above to actually set up the nodes. > */ > > -int __init acpi_scan_nodes(u64 start, u64 end) > > +int __init numa_scan_nodes(u64 start, u64 end) > > { > > int i; > > nodemask_t all_nodes_parsed; > > @@ -371,8 +371,10 @@ int __init acpi_scan_nodes(u64 start, u64 end) > > for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++) > > cutoff_node(i, start, end); > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA > > if (acpi_numa <= 0) > > return -1; > > +#endif > > Looking at the follow-up patches, I find a bit odd that there is a check > for ACPI but there is none added for DT. Can you explain why? > Oh, I forgot DT check. And simply to add DT check here seems not a good idea. Because once, when Arm support ACPI NUMA. CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA and CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_NUMA can be selected at the same time. But only acpi_numa or dtb_numa can be > 0. > However, I think this check is going to impair the work to support both > ACPI and DT on Arm because acpi_numa would end up to be 0 so you would > bail out here. > > With that in mind, I think this check needs to either go away or replace > by something there is firmware agnostic. Yes, we have discussed about something like fw_numa before. > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |