[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 22/37] xen/arm: use NR_MEM_BANKS to override default NR_NODE_MEMBLKS
+x86 maintainers
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: 2021年9月27日 11:26
> > To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-
> > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; julien@xxxxxxx; Bertrand Marquis
> > <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 22/37] xen/arm: use NR_MEM_BANKS to override default
> > NR_NODE_MEMBLKS
> >
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: 2021年9月24日 9:35
> > > > To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > julien@xxxxxxx;
> > > > Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/37] xen/arm: use NR_MEM_BANKS to override
> > default
> > > > NR_NODE_MEMBLKS
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
> > > > > As a memory range described in device tree cannot be split across
> > > > > multiple nodes. So we define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS as NR_MEM_BANKS in
> > > > > arch header.
> > > >
> > > > This statement is true but what is the goal of this patch? Is it to
> > > > reduce code size and memory consumption?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, when Julien and I discussed this in last version[1], we hadn't
> > thought
> > > so deeply. We just thought a memory range described in DT cannot be
> > split
> > > across multiple nodes. So NR_MEM_BANKS should be equal to NR_MEM_BANKS.
> > >
> > > https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-
> > 08/msg00974.html
> > >
> > > > I am asking because NR_MEM_BANKS is 128 and
> > > > NR_NODE_MEMBLKS=2*MAX_NUMNODES which is 64 by default so again
> > > > NR_NODE_MEMBLKS is 128 before this patch.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, this patch alone doesn't make any difference; at least
> > > > doesn't make any difference unless CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES is increased.
> > > >
> > > > So, is the goal to reduce memory usage when CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES is
> > > > higher than 64?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I also thought about this problem when I was writing this patch.
> > > CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES is increasing, but NR_MEM_BANKS is a fixed
> > > value, then NR_MEM_BANKS can be smaller than CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES
> > > at one point.
> > >
> > > But I agree with Julien's suggestion, NR_MEM_BANKS and NR_NODE_MEMBLKS
> > > must be aware of each other. I had thought to add some ASSERT check,
> > > but I don't know how to do it better. So I post this patch for more
> > > suggestion.
> >
> > OK. In that case I'd say to get rid of the previous definition of
> > NR_NODE_MEMBLKS as it is probably not necessary, see below.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > And keep default NR_NODE_MEMBLKS in common header
> > > > > for those architectures NUMA is disabled.
> > > >
> > > > This last sentence is not accurate: on x86 NUMA is enabled and
> > > > NR_NODE_MEMBLKS is still defined in xen/include/xen/numa.h (there is
> > no
> > > > x86 definition of it)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > xen/include/asm-arm/numa.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > > > xen/include/xen/numa.h | 2 ++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/numa.h
> > > > > index 8f1c67e3eb..21569e634b 100644
> > > > > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/numa.h
> > > > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/numa.h
> > > > > @@ -3,9 +3,15 @@
> > > > >
> > > > > #include <xen/mm.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > +#include <asm/setup.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > typedef u8 nodeid_t;
> > > > >
> > > > > -#ifndef CONFIG_NUMA
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS NR_MEM_BANKS
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#else
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Fake one node for now. See also node_online_map. */
> > > > > #define cpu_to_node(cpu) 0
> > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/numa.h b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
> > > > > index 1978e2be1b..1731e1cc6b 100644
> > > > > --- a/xen/include/xen/numa.h
> > > > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
> > > > > @@ -12,7 +12,9 @@
> > > > > #define MAX_NUMNODES 1
> > > > > #endif
> > > > >
> > > > > +#ifndef NR_NODE_MEMBLKS
> > > > > #define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES*2)
> > > > > +#endif
> >
> > This one we can remove it completely right?
>
> How about define NR_MEM_BANKS to:
> #ifdef CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES
> #define NR_MEM_BANKS (CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES * 2)
> #else
> #define NR_MEM_BANKS 128
> #endif
> for both x86 and Arm. For those architectures do not support or enable
> NUMA, they can still use "NR_MEM_BANKS 128". And replace all NR_NODE_MEMBLKS
> in NUMA code to NR_MEM_BANKS to remove NR_NODE_MEMBLKS completely.
> In this case, NR_MEM_BANKS can be aware of the changes of CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES.
x86 doesn't have NR_MEM_BANKS as far as I can tell. I guess you also
meant to rename NR_NODE_MEMBLKS to NR_MEM_BANKS?
But NR_MEM_BANKS is not directly related to CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES because
there can be many memory banks for each numa node, certainly more than
2. The existing definition on x86:
#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES*2)
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Was it just an arbitrary limit for
the lack of a better way to set a maximum?
On the other hand, NR_MEM_BANKS and NR_NODE_MEMBLKS seem to be related.
In fact, what's the difference?
NR_MEM_BANKS is the max number of memory banks (with or without
numa-node-id).
NR_NODE_MEMBLKS is the max number of memory banks with NUMA support
(with numa-node-id)?
They are basically the same thing. On ARM I would just do:
#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS MAX(NR_MEM_BANKS, (CONFIG_NR_NUMA_NODES * 2))
As you wrote above, the second part of the MAX is totally arbitrary. In fact, it is very likely than if you have more than 64 nodes, you may need a lot more than 2 regions per node.
So, for Arm, I would just define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS as an alias to NR_MEM_BANKS so it can be used by common code.
|
