Message-ID: <CAErSpo6ZbKFMgcm4upR7gTnYwZ15UJpxzctOwWMsGyONipq8aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:13:49 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc:	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>,
	kim.naru@....com,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] amd/pci: Add AMD hostbridge supports for newer AMD systems

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Suravee Suthikulpanit
> <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com> wrote:
>> On 3/6/2014 11:40 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>
>>> [+cc Yinghai, sorry I didn't think of it before]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Suravee Suthikulpanit
>>> <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 3/5/2014 8:13 PM, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/2014 3:24 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [+cc linux-acpi]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM,  <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current code only supports upto AMD hostbridge for family11h.
>>>>>>> This causes PCI numa_node information to be reported incorrectly
>>>>>>> for newer family with multi sockets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the incorrect reporting?  In ACPI tables?  Is this patch a
>>>>>> way to cover up firmware defects in the ACPI description?  Or is this
>>>>>> for machines without ACPI (it seems unlikely that machines with new
>>>>>> AMD processors would not have ACPI)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is incorrectly reported in the sysfs for each PCI device (e.g.
>>>>> /devices/pci0000:50/0000:50:00.2/numa_node). Without the patch, they
>>>>> return -1.
>>>>>
>>>>> In file arch/x86/pci/acpi.c, in function pci_acpi_scan_root(), it is
>>>>> queries the node information as following:
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
>>>>>       pxm = acpi_get_pxm(device->handle);
>>>>>       if (pxm >= 0)
>>>>>           node = pxm_to_node(pxm);
>>>>>       if (node != -1)
>>>>>           set_mp_bus_to_node(busnum, node);
>>>>>       else
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>           node = get_mp_bus_to_node(busnum);
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, I see that the acpi_get_pxm() returns -1.  Therefore, it
>>>>> falls back to using the node information in mp_bus_to_node[].  So,
>>>>> without this patch, it would also returning -1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the spec mentioned that the _PXM is optional, so I am not sure if
>>>>> this is a firmware bug.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not quite familiar with the ACPI for this part.  However, after
>>>> taking
>>>> a look at the code (in driver/acpi/pci_root.c: acpi_pci_root_add()), I
>>>> believe it's trying to locate _PXM method in the DSDT table, in which I
>>>> don't see any _PXM methods.
>>>
>>>
>>> This sure looks like a firmware bug.  True, _PXM is optional, but if
>>> the firmware doesn't provide it, nobody should be surprised that the
>>> OS thinks everything is in the same proximity domain.
>>>
>>> I would not endorse extending amd_bus.c for new CPUs.  That just
>>> covers up firmware problems like this, and if you ever run a different
>>> OS on the box, you'll trip over them again.  And I don't think a patch
>>> like this will even be a possibility for Windows.
>>
>> I understand and am trying to verify this with the BIOS engineers. However,
>> this is currently affecting family15h servers out in the field.  We can try
>> to fix ACPI for newer generation of machines, but it won't be practical to
>> push this BIOS fix to all the BIOS vendors and system vendors for older
>> platforms, as they tend to.
>>
>> What if I localize the extension to the changes to access node information
>> in the hostbridge for just the famil15h which is mostly used in our main
>> server products? Would that be acceptable?
>
> I assume the system is fully functional even without these patches,
> right?  The only effect of these changes should be a performance
> improvement.
>
> So the choices are:
>
>   1) Change the BIOS to provide _PXM
>   2) Change Linux with your patches
>
> Either way, the customer has to upgrade something.  Choice 1) gets you
> the performance improvement on all Linux and Windows releases, even
> the ones that are already in the field.  Choice 2) fixes future Linux
> distros and whatever old releases you can convince the distro to
> backport to, and doesn't help Windows at all.  It makes work for all
> the distros and we (i.e., I) have to worry about maintaining this in
> the future.
>
> I'm curious to see what your BIOS folks say.  It seems strange that
> after all these years, they wouldn't provide something relatively
> simple like _PXM, so I wonder if there's more to the story.

I looked at this a bit more.  Your patches fill in the
mp_bus_to_node[] table, and pci_acpi_scan_root() uses
get_mp_bus_to_node() to get that information back out.  But
pci_acpi_scan_root() only uses get_mp_bus_to_node() if acpi_get_pxm()
fails, or if pxm_to_node() returns -1.

If acpi_get_pxm() failed, that's pretty good indication that the _PXM
method is missing or broken.  If pxm_to_node() failed, it looks like
that could mean the SRAT table is missing or broken, and we didn't
fill in the relevant pxm_to_node_map[] entry.  So it's possible that
we do have a _PXM method, but there's something wrong with the SRAT.

Can you collect an acpidump and complete dmesg log from a system with
the problem?  They might be too big for the mailing list; if so, you
can attach them to a kernel.org bugzilla and just include the URL
here.

Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists