| Message ID | 01cb5780041565784d459cd94a5c4f55eaa87739.1709780590.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add ACPI NUMA support for RISC-V | expand |
Hi Haibo, On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:47:58PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > Enable ACPI based NUMA for RISCV in Kconfig. > > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com> > --- > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig > index 0bfcfec67ed5..0fb55f166701 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig > @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ config NUMA > select HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA > select NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK > select NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK > + select ACPI_NUMA if ACPI If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug. Thanks, Sunil > select OF_NUMA > select USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID > help > -- > 2.34.1 >
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:18 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > Hi Haibo, > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 04:47:58PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > > Enable ACPI based NUMA for RISCV in Kconfig. > > > > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com> > > --- > > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig > > index 0bfcfec67ed5..0fb55f166701 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig > > @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ config NUMA > > select HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA > > select NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK > > select NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK > > + select ACPI_NUMA if ACPI > > If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then > there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from > arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am > wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug. > My understanding is maybe it just wants to expose explicit logs to avoid any potential bugs from FW or Kernel. > Thanks, > Sunil > > select OF_NUMA > > select USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID > > help > > -- > > 2.34.1 > >
>> If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then >> there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from >> arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am >> wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug. >> > > My understanding is maybe it just wants to expose explicit logs to > avoid any potential bugs from FW or Kernel. There are lots of ACPI enabled systems that aren't NUMA (single socket servers, desktops, laptops). Making this "pr_info()" would just add noise to the boot on all of those. -Tony
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 04:57:30PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > >> If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then > >> there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from > >> arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am > >> wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug. > >> > > > > My understanding is maybe it just wants to expose explicit logs to > > avoid any potential bugs from FW or Kernel. > > There are lots of ACPI enabled systems that aren't NUMA (single > socket servers, desktops, laptops). Making this "pr_info()" would just > add noise to the boot on all of those. > Exactly. But this is an existing pr_info message across architectures. My suggestion is to add one more patch in this series to convert this to pr_debug unless someone has strong reason to keep it pr_info. Thanks, Sunil
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:54 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 04:57:30PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > >> If the firmware didn't provide the SRAT/SLIT on ACPI based systems, then > > >> there will be a message "Failed to initialise from firmware" from > > >> arch_acpi_numa_init(). This is not specific to RISC-V. But I am > > >> wondering why should it be pr_info instead of pr_debug. > > >> > > > > > > My understanding is maybe it just wants to expose explicit logs to > > > avoid any potential bugs from FW or Kernel. > > > > There are lots of ACPI enabled systems that aren't NUMA (single > > socket servers, desktops, laptops). Making this "pr_info()" would just > > add noise to the boot on all of those. > > > Exactly. But this is an existing pr_info message across architectures. > My suggestion is to add one more patch in this series to convert > this to pr_debug unless someone has strong reason to keep it pr_info. > Sure. I will add a patch to fix it in v3. Thanks, Haibo > Thanks, > Sunil
diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig index 0bfcfec67ed5..0fb55f166701 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ config NUMA select HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA select NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK select NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK + select ACPI_NUMA if ACPI select OF_NUMA select USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID help
Enable ACPI based NUMA for RISCV in Kconfig. Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com> --- arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)