linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 08/10] dt, numa: Add NUMA dt binding implementation.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:57:35 -0800
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 08/10] dt, numa: Add NUMA dt binding implementation.

On 03/01/2016 08:47 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:26 PM, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/2016 11:36 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:13:17PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>
>>>>
>>>> ADD device tree node parsing for NUMA topology using device
>>>> "numa-node-id" property distance-map.
>>>
>>>
>>> I still want an adequate explanation why NUMA setup cannot be done with
>>> an unflattened tree. PowerPC manages to do that and should have a
>>> similar init flow being memblock based, so I would expect arm64 can too.
>>
>>
>> Many things could be done.  Really, we want to know what *should* be done.
>>
>> In the context of the current arm64 memory initialization we (more or less)
>> do:
>>
>>   1) early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem();
>>   2) memory_present()
>>   3) sparse_init()
>>   4) other things
>>   5) unflatten_device_tree()
>>
>> We are already reading information out of the FDT at #1.
>>
>> This patch set adds a step between 1 and 2 where we read NUMA information
>> out of the FDT.
>
> The dependency on unflattening is that memblock is up and we can
> allocate a chunk from it. Isn't that dependency met by step 1

No.

> or is
> there a dependency on sparsemem (or something else)?

Will Deacon talked about this over here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/26/782

I am happy to modify the patch set, but I don't want to get stuck as an 
intermediary between two opposing blocs.

David Daney