Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:58:53 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip, gicv3-its, numa: Workaround for Cavium ThunderX erratum 23144 | From | Ganapatrao Kulkarni <> |
| |
Hi Marc,
thanks for the suggestions.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > On 24/08/15 14:27, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > >>>>>> static void its_enable_cavium_thunderx(void *data) >>>>>> { >>>>>> - struct its_node *its = data; >>>>>> + struct its_node __maybe_unused *its = data; >>>>>> >>>>>> - its->flags |= ITS_FLAGS_CAVIUM_THUNDERX; >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CAVIUM_ERRATUM_22375 >>>>>> + its->flags |= ITS_WORKAROUND_CAVIUM_22375; >>>>>> + pr_info("ITS: Enabling workaround for 22375, 24313\n"); >>>>>> +#endif >>>>>> + >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CAVIUM_ERRATUM_23144 >>>>>> + if (num_possible_nodes() > 1) { >>>>>> + its->numa_node = its_get_node_thunderx(its); >>>>> >>>>> I'd rather see numa_node being always initialized to something useful. >>>>> If you're adding numa support, why can't this be initialized via >>>>> standard topology bindings? >>>> IIUC, topology defines only cpu topology. >>> >>> Well, welcome to a much more complex system where both your CPUs and >>> your IOs have some degree of affinity. This needs to be described >>> properly, and not hacked on the side. >> ok, will add description for the function. > > I sense that you misunderstood what I meant. What I'd like to see is > some topology information coming from DT, showing the relationship > between a device (your ITS) and a given node (your socket). This can > then be used from two purposes: sure will post next version with changes as per you comments. > > - find the optimal affinity for a MSI so that it doesn't default to a > foreign node (a reasonable performance expectation), this can be done by adding dt associativity property to its node. i can send in next version of patch. > - work around implementation bugs where an LPI cannot be routed to a > redistributor that is on a foreign node.
> > I really don't feel like adding a hack just for the second point, and > I'd rather get the big picture right so that your workaround is just a > special case of the generic one. > > Thanks, > > M. > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
thanks Ganapat
| |